As useful as the Circular Flow Diagram is for providing a
framework for macroeconomic analysis, it is a bit cumbersome. Fortunately, the
relationships between the concepts that appear in the table and the diagram can also be
represented more efficiently by an equation - the National
Income Identity. In its simplest form this equation states
that Supply = Demand. Firms produce a given amount of goods and services which they sell
in the output market. The value of this output is defined as Gross Domestic Product (Q).
The buyers for this output come from the household, government, business, and foreign
sectors. Demand originating in these four sectors is defined respectively as: Consumption
spending (C); Government spending (G); Investment spending (I); and Export spending (X).
Given the nature of the accounting procedures, some of the expenditures by these buyers
will be for Imports (M) defined as goods and services produced outside of the U.S. For
this reason the level of import expenditures is subtracted from total expenditures to
arrive at total demand for domestic production. This relationship can be represented with
the Aggregate Supply = Aggregate Demand [equation (1)].
(1) Q = C + I + G + X - M
Aggregate Supply = Aggregate Demand
An alternative approach to the national income identity is
described in equation 2. There is no new information in this equation, it is simply a
repackaging of the initial information. This approach is often referred to as the
Injections = Withdrawals approach. Rather than looking at output demand and supply, this
approach focuses on the allocation of income. To explain the equation Injections =
Withdrawals fully, we can begin in the output market and trace the flow of income
generated in the production of goods and services. Along the way through the system, some
of the income leaves the system and does not get back to the firms in the form of demand
for output. To simplify, let us assume all the income is paid to the household
sector. Some of this income, however, goes to the government in the form of taxes (TA) and
some comes back to households in the form of transfer payments (TR). The
difference is net taxes (T = TA - TR). The remainder,
defined as disposable income, is allocated by the household sector to buy goods and
services which we call Consumption expenditures (C). Some disposable income goes to the
purchase of things such as stocks and bonds and deposits in bank accounts which we call
Saving (S). This currency is taken out of the flow of income. Some of the goods that are
purchased however, are produced abroad resulting in some of the income flowing out of the
country to pay for imports (M). The total level of withdrawals from the system would be:
Withdrawals = S + M + T
Offsetting these leakages / withdrawals from the system are
the injections of spending. The government buys currently produced goods and services (G)
with income that comes from net tax receipts ( TA - TR) and borrowing from the capital
market. Similarly there is Investment spending (I) by the business sector on currently
produced goods and services to be used in the production of future goods and services that
can be financed by retained earnings and borrowing from the capital market. The third
injection is Export demand (X) and net foreign payments (NFP), the injection of spending
on currently produced goods and services by foreigners. [To make things a bit
easier I will set NFP = 0 so we will not need to continue using this term]. Thus, the total level of
injections into the system would be:
Injections = I + X + G
If this flow was sustainable, if the income generated in the
production process eventually returned to the producers in the form of demand, then
injections would need to balance the withdrawals. The equality of Injection = Withdrawals
[equation (2)] is therefore simply a restatement of the Supply = Demand condition.
(2) I + G + X = M + S + T
Injections = Withdrawals
There is a third formulation of the identity which has become
quite useful in recent years. This formulation, described in equation 3, focuses attention
on the interdependence between the trade deficit (TDEF = X - M), the budget deficit
(BD = G + TR - TA) , and the balance between private savings and investment (I - S).
(3) (S - I) = - TDEF + BDEF
In the U.S., for example, it is widely recognized that the
savings rate is quite low (low S) and that substantial investment spending (large I) holds
the key to future growth. If we add to this the fact that the government is running a
substantial deficit (BDEF>0), then the only way to sustain this situation is if the
country runs a substantial foreign trade deficit (X -M < 0). In Japan, on the
other hand, a high savings rate has traditionally produced savings that were more than
enough to finance investment spending (S > I) and offset any budget deficit (G +
T >0). Given these domestic imbalances, Japan will run a trade surplus. Thus the trade
and budget deficits are inextricably interrelated, although not in a direct relationship
where a change in one will necessarily involve an adjustment in the other. What we can
expect is that American leaders will continue to blame the trade deficit with Japan on
restrictive trade policies while the Japanese will continue to blame the imbalance on the
low saving rate and the high budget deficits in the US.