Transcript Federal shotgun

Harry M. Hipler, JD, LLM, MURP, MA
[email protected]
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Florida International University
POS Graduate Research Seminar Project
Second Industrial Revolution, and more and more data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The year 1869 is significant in US history. Transcontinental railroad was completed from east to
west with creation of nationwide transportation system.
Increased industrialization included a transition from hand production to machines, new chemical
manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, increasing use
of steam power, development of machine tools, copper, silver, and lead mines were discovered and
opened in the west.
More employment was sought in bourgeoning urban areas where industrialization and
urbanization was developing.
Capital investment, labor union growth, modernization of agriculture, federal land grants, and
sustained industrialization emerged.
Economic cycles of business swings became commonplace in the embodiment of a capitalistic
society in the US that resulted in various business cycles -- rates of growth, expansion, recovery,
and consumption.
US economy was susceptible to ups and downs, depressions, and excessive unemployment thereby
requiring experts in the fields to keep track of the changing economic conditions and trends in the
US economy.
The importance of the US’s GDP growth rate and ranges of unemployment was beginning to take
hold by economists and historians.
As industrialization grew, data for economic indicators became very important, so that experts in
economics, history, and political science could attempt to interpret the figures and determine what
may lie ahead for the US economy
HYPOTHESIS: There is a positive correlation between
economic performance (IV) and presidential greatness
(DV) of the presidents serving in office from 1869 to
2013
• Economic performance economic indicators were limited to
two –
• (1) full employment/unemployment rate of 5.5% or less; and
• (2) GDP rate (gross measure of market activity of money
changing hands in money transactions including costs and
gain) with a 2% to 4% growth rate.
• Use of multitude or “shotgun” approach of economic
indicators that overlap may tend to skew economic
performance in favor of well-to-do individuals.
• Goal should be to determine the pulse and stability of the
entire economy, not just well to do.
** I have considered the six rankings of “great”, “near great”, “above
average”, “average”, “below average”, and “failure”. I divided them into
groups of three (3) that include: (1) “good and near great”; (2)
“average and above average”; and (3) “unsatisfactory and poor”. The
number (n) of presidencies researched was 26, excluding Garfield.
• Cleveland was elected twice as president number 22 and 24, as he
served in alternative and separate terms of office making the total
number of individual presidents who have served in office for total of
43.
• I have included President Obama, our 44th President, even though he is
still in office and was re-elected in 2012, because the Siena Poll on
American Presidents includes him in their rankings, and there is ample
information and figures on economic performance and activity as
president to place him into a category.
**For purposes of this research paper, I assume that the upper 33% of
the presidents’ are “good or near great” on account of their rankings;
the middle tier includes the next 33%, who are identified as “average
and above average”; and the last tier of 33% are described as
“unsatisfactory and poor” presidents.
• From 1869 to the present, there were a total of 26 presidents that
served:
• 1. The first category of good to near great in the C-SPAN
Presidential Greatness Survey are FDR, T. Roosevelt, Truman,
Kennedy, Eisenhower, Wilson, Reagan, and L. Johnson.
• 2. The second tier of the C-SPAN Presidential Greatness Survey
includes Clinton, McKinley, GHW Bush, Cleveland, and Ford. The
Siena Presidential Poll includes the aforementioned presidents and
Obama, who places in the second tier of the survey. Clinton falls
within the good and great presidents in the Sienna Presidential Poll,
whereas Reagan falls into the second tier as an average and above
average president in Sienna poll.
• Ford served an estimated two years, five months as president from
1974 to 1977, he became president when Nixon was forced to
resign, and neither he nor Nixon ran for office as a team after Ford’s
appointment as vice president upon Spiro Agnew’s resignation.
Economic performance: (1) Unemployment (less than or equal to 5.5%)
**found in Appendix of paper for each presidential administration
President Clinton
Year
Unemployment rate %
during December/year
Average
unemployment rate %
during presidential
term with one year lag
•Trend of
unemployment rate %
during presidential
term with one year lag
from first full
presidential term to
last full year of
presidential term
Clinton sworn into
term 1 (numbers
attributable to GHWB)
1993
6.5
6.9
3.2
1994
5.5
1995
5.6
1996
5.4
1997
4.7
5.3
-14.5
1998
4.4
1999
4.0
2000
3.9
2001
5.7
4.5
29.5
Clinton sworn into
term 2
Economic performance: (2) Gross Domestic Product (2% to 4% growth rate)
**found in Appendix of paper for each presidential administration
President Clinton
Year
Rate of GDP average %
of entire year
Average GDP % rate
during presidential
term with one year lag
Trend of GDP rate
during presidential
term with one year lag
from prior presidential
term. Trend is term
average to year
president is sworn into
office
Clinton sworn into
office for term 1
(numbers attributable
to GHWB)
1993
1.32
0.45
116.39
1994
2.78
1995
1.46
1996
2.37
1997
3.00
2.40
7.91
1998
3.09
1999
2.91
2000
2.67
2001
1.08
2.43
-65.04
Clinton sworn into
office term 2
SUMMARY OF PRESIDENTIAL ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE. Based upon my initial
observation and analysis of my model of economic performance – GDP growth
rate between 2% and 4% is ideal, and the employment/unemployment rate should
be less than or equal to 5.5% unemployment – the following presidents fall within
those who had sound economic performance results making them worthy of
consideration as good to near great presidents: Grant (first term was good, but
second term resulted in Panic of 1873), C. Arthur, Cleveland (his first term was
sound, but not his second term due to a depression), B. Harrison, McKinley
(economic performance figures substantially improved during his first term as
president after entering office near the end of a severe depression), T. Roosevelt,
Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan (his second term
had reduced actual unemployment and good GDP performance figures, and during
his first term there was a trend toward reduced unemployment and an ideal GDP
growth rate, even though these two indicators fell outside of the full employment
rate of 5.5% and the GDP’s ideal growth rate of 2% to 4%), Clinton, and Obama
(his one and only term suggests that while the full employment/unemployment
rate remained above 5.5% after he became president, US unemployment
substantially improved, and the GDP resulted in favorable growth rates of 2% to
4% after the one year lag of the GW Bush administration was eliminated).
During each of these presidents terms of office, the GDP had an average growth
rate of 2% to 4%, or a trend toward this ideal rate; and there was a rate of
unemployment averaging less than or equal to 5.5%, or a substantial uptick toward
full employment.
•
INITIAL RESULT: After considering the data on GDP growth and the
employment/unemployment rate during the presidents’ terms from 1869 to 2013,
I suggest that there is a positive correlation between economic performance and
presidential greatness rankings during a presidents’ term in office.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There are some presidents who do not fall within the category of good or near great
presidents, even though their economic performance results fall within or trend toward the
ideal rate of full employment and GDP indicators:
Grant, Nixon, C. Arthur, B. Harrison, and Coolidge do not fall within the category of good or
near great presidents. However, these men had sound economic performance results during
their respective presidential administrations.
Reasonable explanations why these presidents do not fall within the category of good to near
great presidents includes:
(a) scandal, corruption, dishonor, or criminal activity (Nixon, Grant);
(b) no signature legislation; instead, maintenance of the status quo (Coolidge);
(c) president was never tested by substantial foreign relations or domestic and economic
policy problem(s) (Harrison, Arthur, Coolidge), and
(d) their service lasted for one term rather than two terms; failure to be reelected (C.
Arthur, B. Harrison) without being re-elected;
(e) wars matter, but they are a double edged sword if US does not win, obtain peace, or
war lingers (LBJ, Nixon).
•
Ranking presidential administrations by their economic performance
•
The presidential administrations from 1869 to 2013 are graded on their own
merits according to the averages and the percentage of trend changes of the
indicators during the presidential administration. I used a one year lag for
statistical and analytical purposes in determining economic performance.
After comparing the indicators’ average and trend evaluations, I assigned a
numerical value to determine whether the presidential term of office should
receive a 4, 3, 2, or 1 as it relates to the economic performance of the president.
As to presidential greatness, I assigned a 3, 2, or 1 based upon a composite of
the C-SPAN Presidential Leadership Survey and the Siena Presidential Poll results.
A summary of the economic performance and presidential greatness results can
be found in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in my research paper where I rank presidential
greatness and economic performance in descending order.
•
•
•
•
Each table of the GDP growth rate and employment/unemployment is a summary
of usage of the IV of economic performance and is summarized as follows:
•
(1) if the presidential term obtains an average GDP growth rate of 2% to 4% (fn 1),
and an average full employment/unemployment rate of 5.5% or less (fn 2) and/or
the trend has moved toward an average GDP growth rate of 2% and 4%, but still
remains outside of this ideal GDP growth rate, and the full
employment/unemployment rate has moved toward a 5.5% unemployment rate,
but still remains greater than 5.5%, then the president receives a “4”;
(2) if the presidential term is successful as stated in (1), above, in only one of the
two indicators under the averages or the trend change in unemployment and GDP
growth rate, then the presidential term will receive a “3”;
3) if the GDP rate trend has moved away from 2% or 4%, and the unemployment
percentage has moved to more than 5.5%, then the presidential term will receive a
“2”;
(4) if the presidential term’s GDP growth rate percentage and unemployment rate
suggest a depression or recession in accordance with the historical literature
without improvement during the administration, then the president will receive a
“1”.
•
•
•
•
•
Fn1 (Angus Madison’s data on GDP and Bureau of Economic Analysis National Economic Accounts Index BEA NEA)
Fn2 (Lebergott’s Annual Estimates in US and US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Presidents from 1869 to 2013 categorized by presidential greatness in
descending order in accordance with my research study
President
(26) T. Roosevelt
(28) Wilson
(32) FDR
(33) Truman
(34) Eisenhower
(35) Kennedy
(36) L. Johnson
(40) Reagan
(42) Clinton
(18) Grant
(21) Arthur
(22) Cleveland
(25) McKinley
(27) Taft
(30) Coolidge
(38) Ford
(39) Carter
(41) GHW Bush
(44) Obama
(19) Hayes
(23 ) B Harrison
(24) Cleveland
(29) Harding
(31) Hoover
(37) Nixon
(43) GW Bush
(20) Garfield*
Year(s) of service
Presidential greatness
Economic
performance
1901-1909
1913-1921
1933-1945
1945-1953
1953-1661
1961-1963
1963-1969
1981-1989
1993-2001
1869-1877
1881-1885
1885-1889
1897-1901
1909-1913
1924-1929
1975-1977
1977-1981
1989-1993
2009-2013
1877-1881
1889-1893
1893-1897
1921-1923
1929-1933
1969-1975
2001-2009
1881-1881
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Not considered
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
1
4
2
Not considered.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 4
Unsatisfactory/
Poor
7
26.90
26.90
•
•
Average/above
Average
11
42.30
69.20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good/near great
8
30.80
100.00
______________________________________________________________
TOTAL
26
100.00
•
Satisfactory
6
23.10
26.90
•
•
Good/above
Average
4
15.40
42.30
•
•
•
•
Best
15
57.70
100.00
________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
26
100.00
Presidential Greatness
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative percent
Table 5
Economic Performance
Frequency
Unsatisfactory/
Poor
1
Percent
3.80
Cumulative Percent
3.80
Spearman-rho correlation analysis
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hypotheses testing
There was one hypothesis tested in this research study: there is a positive correlation between US
economic performance and presidential greatness for the presidents serving in office from 1869 to 2013.
A Spearman-rho correlation analysis was performed to assess the degree of relationship between the two
variables. This type of correlation is appropriate for ordinal measures. Spearman's coefficient, like any
correlation calculation, is appropriate for both continuous and discrete (separated, disconnected)
variables, including ordinal (relative position in a sequence of numbers) variables in a nonparametric
measure of statistical dependence between two variables, which in this case concerned economic
performance (IV) and presidential greatness (DV).
The result was r=.435, p=.027 and may be found in Table 6 of the research paper and below.
Specifically, there was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between the two variables.
This indicated that as economic performance increased, presidential greatness tended to increase.
Accordingly, the statistical analysis performed suggests that there is a moderate positive correlation
between US economic performance (independent variable) and presidential greatness (dependent
variable).
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations
Presidential Greatness
•
•
•
•
Spearman’s rho
Economic Performance
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2 tailed)
N
.435
.027
26
• Based on my initial observations and the quantitative
correlation coefficient of the Spearman correlation
coefficient, there is a moderate positive correlation
between economic performance and presidential
greatness for the presidents in office from 1869 to 2013.
• For a president to have an opportunity to achieve greatness
status, he must have a positive economic performance
record during his administration(s) without which he will
not obtain presidential greatness.
• Positive economic performance will not guarantee
presidential greatness if other factors exist that moderate
the success of the presidency.
• US GDP growth rate from 1869 to 2013. Each year listed in separate
columns containing the GDP’s growth, whether it increased or decreased
from one year to the next, the average growth rate during the presidential
administration, and the percentage amount of increase or decrease from
one president to the next president (Angus Madison’s data on GDP and
the Bureau of Economic Analysis National Economic Accounts Index (BEA
NEA) with specific calculations of annual and presidential term growth
rates) (Maddison 2006; BEA NEA 2013).
• National rate of unemployment in the US from 1869 to 2013. This data
has been taken from Lebergott’s Annual Estimates in the US and the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Lebergott 1964; US BLS 2013). I have provided
the rate of unemployment for each year of this study, including the
presidential election years, average rate of unemployment during the
presidential administration, and whether there was an increase or
decrease in the rate of unemployment from one presidential term to the
next
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The influences of economic policy: uses of averages and trends in this research study:
In the examination of economic performance, averages and trends should be considered together, as each
measure counterbalances the other’s weaknesses. A president sworn into office with already existing high
unemployment rates may on average record a second-rate performance in terms of average level of economic
performance, even if the trend of the GDP became stabilized and the unemployment rate decreased during his
administration.
By examining if the percentage of unemployment decreased, or whether the GDP growth rate fell toward or within
the ideal range, trends permit the incoming president to be credited with alleviating the adverse economic
indicators during his term. On the other hand, a president who inherited low unemployment or an ideal GDP
must accept blame for increased unemployment, or an erratic and unstable GDP, even if the president’s overall
averages are relatively good.
These positive and negative results are shown through trend analysis, which overcomes a major weakness of
exclusively relying on averages during a presidential administration . The trend indicator is calculated by
determining the unemployment rate and GDP growth from the administration’s first full year in office through the
first year of the next administration, thus incorporating a one-year time lag at both ends.
A presidents’ success in sustaining good and acceptable trends and averages of economic indicators during an
administration is indicative of his presidential performance. If a president is able to maintain ideal GDP growth
rates and full employment/unemployment rates, then a small worsening of the trend change should not
effectively lessen his good performance. By considering averages, one can have a reasonable idea as to whether
good economic conditions existed during a given administration, which is also important to a president’s political
fate and achievement.