In a highly technical paper, which contains the boilerplate statement that it "should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF”, Blanchard and co-author Daniel Leigh focused on a number used for forecasting known as the fiscal multiplier – the impact that a rise or fall in government spending or tax collection has on a country’s economic output – and claimed that the “multipliers implicit in the forecasts were, on average, too low.”
Accordingly in 2010, IMF forecasters were using a uniform multiplier of 0.5, when in fact the circumstances of the European economy made the multiplier as much as 1.5, meaning that a $1 government spending cut would cost $1.50 in lost output.
In 2010, using the inaccurate multipliers, fund forecasters had effectively predicted that the nation could cut deeply into government spending and still quickly bounce back to economic growth and rising employment. But two years later, the Greek economy is still shrinking, and unemployment is at 25 percent.
Blanchard and Leigh however denied that the study was denouncing austerity, claiming that “deciding on the appropriate stance of fiscal policy requires much more than an assessment regarding the size of short-term fiscal multipliers.”
“Virtually all advanced economies face the challenge of fiscal adjustment in response to elevated government debt levels and future pressures on public finances from demographic change,” they added. “The short-term effects of fiscal policy on economic activity are only one of the many factors that need to be considered in determining the appropriate pace of fiscal consolidation for any single country.”
Speaking the BBC, Professor Ngaire Woods, a former independent advisor to the IMF European Regional Advisory Group, said that the IMF have been urging "any country that can, should slow down austerity.” However, these countries “shouldn't do it as one big bang upfront, because the results on the economy will produce a vicious cycle.”
“Fiscal consolidation should be spread out,” she said.