“Although we are seeing a strengthening recovery in the United States, the overall performance of the global economy continues to fall short of aspirations,” said Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs Nathan Sheets to a Brookings audience yesterday. In the event, hosted by the Global Economy and Development program and the Economic Studies program at Brookings, Undersecretary Sheets described six “pillars” that form his offices “core policy agenda for the years ahead” to support “a growing and vibrant U.S. economy.”

1. Strengthening and rebalancing global growth. Undersecretary Sheets noted the “persistent and deeper asymmetry in the international economic landscape,” and called for policymakers to “work together toward mutually beneficial growth strategies” such as boosting demand.
2. Deepening engagement with emerging-market giants, such as China, India, Mexico, and Brazil. On India, for example, the undersecretary noted that “faster growth, deeper financial markets, and greater openness to trade and foreign investment promise to raise incomes, reduce poverty, and bring many more Indians into the global middle class.”
3. Framing a resilient global financial system. “To be sustained,” he said, “growth must be built on a resilient financial foundation.” (See also Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard’s remarks yesterday on the Fed’s role in financial stability.)
4. Enhancing access to capital in developing countries. “Expanding access to financial services for the over 2 billion unbanked people in the world promises to open new possibilities as the financial wherewithal in these populations grows,” he said.
5. Promoting open trade and investment. Undersecretary Sheets explained that “Increased U.S. access to foreign markets, and the consequent rise in exports of our goods and services, is an important source of job creation in the United States.” He described current trade priorities, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) concerning China, and the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) concerning India.
6. Enhancing U.S. leadership in the IMF. Undersecretary Sheets said that Treasury and the Obama administration “are firmly committed to securing approval for the 2010 IMF quota and governance reforms.” Citing the widespread support already in place for these policies, Sheets argued that “without these reforms, emerging economies may well look outside the IMF and the international economic system we helped design, potentially undermining the Fund’s ability to serve as a first responder for financial crises around the world, and also our national security and economic well-being.” He also called on the Senate to confirm six administration nominees as executive directors or alternate executive directors at the IMF and multilateral development banks.

Watch the video here:

Get a transcript of Undersecretary Sheets’ prepared remarks here.

Brookings expert Donald Kohn, the Robert S. Kerr Senior Fellow, moderated the discussion. The speaker was introduced by Senior Fellow Amar Bhattacharya.

A clamor is rising against "short termism"—judging a company by its performance over the past quarter, rather than the past few years. BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink and Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo Strine, for example, recently joined the Business Roundtable and others in decrying the strong pressures for short-term results exerted by daily stock traders and activist hedge funds. Critics claim that these pressures prevent executives from making long-term investments needed for sustainable corporate growth.

There are pressures on and incentives for corporate leaders to put the short term ahead of the long term, but not necessarily from activist hedge funds or stock trading. And some proposed remedies for short-termism would undermine the economic interests of shareholders.

The current attack on short termism is premised on the sharp increase in the average daily trading volume of stocks over the past few decades. The primary cause has been a relatively small group of day traders, including the notorious high-frequency traders who buy millions of shares and sell them a millisecond later. These traders care not a whit about corporate fundamentals or business plans; they are trying to exploit slight pricing anomalies that arise because of technical differences in securities markets. Thus corporate executives should not be pressured by higher daily trading volumes to avoid good long-term investment spending.

Critics of short-termism are even more alarmed about activist hedge funds that may lobby corporations to pay higher dividends, for example, or sell unprofitable divisions. They claim these funds push for a quick boost in corporate earnings in order to sell their shares for a quick profit.

The data do not support this uniformly negative view. Activist hedge funds display a broad array of strategies and time horizons. On average, they hold a company's stock for one or two years, according to various empirical studies. Yet according to a recent McKinsey study of 400 activist campaigns over the past decade, the median campaign was launched when the company was on the decline and led to higher shareholder returns relative to peers for at least three years.

To win proxy contests, activist hedge funds must persuade other shareholders to support the changes they advocate. The funds usually hold a relatively small percentage of a company's shares; the overwhelming majority are owned by institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension plans.

Activist hedge funds have won roughly half of the proxy contests they've entered, as institutional investors have carefully distinguished among long-term plans depending on a company's specific circumstances. These institutions backed activist campaigns to increase dividends at companies like Apple with huge hoards of cash. But they've also supported multi-year research programs of biotech firms like Amgen that have shown they can deliver.

To thwart the perceived threats of short-termism, critics have proposed measures that would reduce the legal rights and economic interests of all shareholders. Martin Lipton, a prominent opponent of activist hedge funds, has recommended that U.S. corporate law adopt a new norm—that corporate directors be elected to five-year terms, rather than the usual one-year term. Such long tenure, combined with existing anti-takeover defenses, would effectively insulate the leadership of chronically under-performing companies.

There is a better approach: Boards should measure and reward the efforts of corporate executives and portfolio managers by looking at the organization's performance over the past three years. At present, most firms distribute cash bonuses and stock grants on the basis of the prior year's results. This approach does encourage top executives to favor short-term results over long-term growth.

At the same time, the top executives at both public companies and asset managers should be required to retain for three to five years half of the shares they receive through stock grants and options. At present, these people can usually sell all their shares as soon as they vest or the options are exercised. This is an inducement for top executives and managers to push up the company's stock price for a few months so they can sell at a temporary high.

While there are reasonable concerns about corporate short-termism, their remedies should be narrowly tailored. Most of these concerns can be addressed by adopting longer periods for executive compensation. But we should not overreact to day traders or hedge funds by dramatically reducing the legitimate rights and financial interests of all shareholders.

When the head of the world’s largest investment fund raises fundamental questions about U.S. corporations, we should all pay attention.

In a letter earlier this week to the Fortune 500 CEOs, BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink criticized the short-term orientation that he believes shapes too much of today’s corporate behavior. “It concerns us,” he declared, that “in the wake of the financial crisis, many companies have shied away from investing in the future growth of their companies. Too many have cut capital expenditure and even increased debt to boost dividends and increase share buybacks.” And he concluded, “When done for the wrong reasons and at the expense of capital investment, [returning cash to shareholders] can jeopardize a company’s ability to generate sustainable long-term returns.”

Fink is correct on all counts. In a new Brookings paper out today, University of Massachusetts economist William Lazonick states that the 454 companies listed continuously in the S&P 500 index between 2004 and 2013 used 51 percent of their earnings to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. An additional 35 percent went to dividends. “Buybacks represent a withdrawal of internally controlled finance that could be used to support investment in the company’s productive capabilities,” he said.

This is bad for the economy in two ways. As the growth of the U.S. workforce slows dramatically, economic growth will depend increasingly on improved productivity, must of which comes from raising capital investment per worker. Failing to make productivity-enhancing capital investments will doom our economy to a new normal of slow growth.

Many business leaders say that they are reluctant to make long-term investments without reasonable expectations of growing demand for their products. That brings us to the second way in which corporate short-termism is bad for the economy. Most consumer demand comes from wages. If employers refuse to share gains with their employees, growth in demand is bound to be anemic.

Although he clearly cares about his country, Fink is also acting as the steward of $4.8 trillion in investments. In an article published by McKinzie earlier this month, he warns that although the return of cash to shareholders is juicing equity markets right now, investors “will pay for it later when the ability to generate revenue in the long term dries up because of the lack of investment in the future.”

Unlike most other corporate leaders who express concerns about these developments, Fink is unwilling to rely on moral suasion alone. Because current incentives are so perverse, he argued, “It is hard for even the most dedicated CEO to buck this trend.” The constant pressure to produce quarterly results forces executives to go along—or risk losing their jobs. That pressure comes from investors who are, in Fink’s words, “renters, not owners, who are going to trade your stock as soon as they can pocket a quick gain.”

This logic leads BlackRock’s chairman to propose changing the tax code by lengthening to three years the the period needed to qualify for capital gains treatment while taxing trading gains at an even higher rate than ordinary income for investment held less than six months. To encourage truly patient capital, the capital gains rate would be stepped down to zero over a period of ten years.

Last June, Brookings senior fellow Elaine Kamarck and I published a paper laying out the rise of short-term thinking in U.S. corporations. We argued that this trend was bad for the economy, and we suggested policies that would at least slow it down and diminish its effects.

Since then, additional research on short-termism has emerged, and an increasing number of corporate leaders are expressing concern about the trajectory of U.S. firms. Last November, for example, the Boston Consulting Group documented a worrisome decline in the corporate activities and investments designed to discover and nurture future growth opportunities. This turn away from exploratory activities may not immediately affect investors, said the BCG report: in the short term, companies can maintain earnings and shareholder returns by “cutting costs, increasing dividends, and pursuing share buybacks.” (As Kamarck and I showed, this is what is happening across our economy.) But in the long run, BCG researchers found, firms that invest in exploration boost revenues and total returns far faster than do those who are content to exploit their existing lines of business and return most of their earnings to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks.

A few days ago, Laurence Fink, the chief executive of the world’s largest investment fund and a long-time foe of short-termism, sent a letter to the heads of S & P 500 companies and large European corporations. He noted that in the twelve months ending September 30 2015, buybacks had risen by 27 percent over the previous year, when buybacks already stood at record levels. “Today’s culture of quarterly earning hysteria,” he declared, is “totally contrary to the long-term approach we need.” And he warned corporate executives that in the absence of well-considered long-term plans for investment and growth, they would expose their firms “to the pressures on investors focused on maximizing near-term profit at the expense of long-term value.”

Many influential investors agree with Fink, and they are joining forces. On February 1, the Financial Times reported that since last summer, the world’s largest asset managers—Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, and the heads of BlackRock, Fidelity, Vanguard, and Capital Group, among others—have been holding secret meetings to frame proposals that would encourage longer-term investments while reducing friction with shareholders. These proposals, which are reportedly some months away from final agreement and publication, may well involve changes in boards of directors, executive compensation, and shareholder rights.

The summit participants plan to support these changes for the companies in which they invest. Given the pools of funds they control, which amount to many trillions of dollars, their coordinated action may well represent a turning-point in the struggle to reorient corporate strategy toward the long term.

Throughout the past year, we have heard paid leave debated in state houses and on the campaign trail. I am all in favor of paid leave. As I have argued elsewhere, it would enable more people, especially those in lower-paid jobs, to take time off to deal with a serious illness or the care of another family member, including a newborn child. But we shouldn’t stop with paid leave. We should also consider shortening the standard work week. Such a step would be gender neutral and would not discriminate between the very different kinds of time pressures faced by adults. It might even help to create more jobs.

The standard work week is 40 hours -- 8 hours a day for five days a week. It’s been that way for a long time. Back in 1900, the typical factory worker spent 53 hours on the job, more than a third more hours than we spend today. The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938, and set maximum hours at 40 per week. Amazingly, more than three quarters of a century after passage of the FLSA, there has been no further decline in the standard work week. Not only has the legal standard remained unchanged, but 40 hours has become the social and cultural norm.

What’s going on here? Economists predicted that as we became more prosperous we would choose to work fewer hours. That hasn’t happened. Instead we have kept on working at about the same pace as we did earlier in our history, but have poured all of the gains from productivity growth into ever-higher levels of consumption – bigger houses, more electronic gadgets, fancier cars. With increased prosperity, people are buying more and more stuff, but they don’t have any more time to enjoy it. A reduction in the standard work week would improve the quality of life, especially for those in hourly jobs who have benefitted hardly at all from economic growth in recent decades.

Two-earner couples would also benefit. Among couples between the ages of 25 and 54, the number of hours worked increased by 20 percent between 1969 and 2000, from 56 hours to 67 hours (for both husband and wife combined). As Heather Boushey notes in her new book, Finding Time, we no longer live in a world where there is a “the silent partner” in every business enterprise, the iconic “American Wife,” who takes care of the children and the millions of details of daily living. With a shorter work week, both men and women would have more time for everything from cutting the grass to cooking dinner with no presumption about who does what. Although much of the debate this year has been about work-family balance, empty nesters or singles without young children might also welcome a shorter work week. For them it would provide the chance to follow their dream of becoming an artist, a boat builder, or the creator of their own small business.

Shorter hours could have another benefit and that is more jobs for workers who would otherwise be left behind by technological change. Many economists believe that as existing jobs are replaced by machines and artificial intelligence, new jobs will be created in technical, management, and service fields. But will this happen fast enough or at sufficient scale to reemploy all those who now find themselves without decent-paying work? I doubt it. A shorter work week might help to spread the available jobs around. Germany and other European countries, along with a few U.S. states used this strategy during the Great Recession. It kept more people on the job but at shorter hours and reduced unemployment. Using a similar strategy to deal with automation and long-term joblessness, although controversial, should not be dismissed out of hand.

Of course, shorter hours can mean lower total pay. But in one typical survey published in the Monthly Labor Review, 28 percent of the respondents said they would give up a day’s pay for one fewer day of work per week. Any new movement to reduce the work week would need to be phased in slowly, with flexibility for both employers and employees to negotiate adjustments around the standard. Yet if done correctly, the transition could be accomplished with little or no reduction in wages, just smaller raises as a bigger slice of any productivity improvement was invested in more free time. When Henry Ford reduced the work week from 6 to 5 days in 1926, he did not cut wages; he assumed that both productivity and consumption would rise, and his example encouraged other employers to follow suit.

I am not talking about reducing hours for those of us who want to spend long hours at work because we enjoy it. We would still be free to work 24/7, tied to our electronic devices, and no longer knowing exactly when work begins and ends. A new hours standard would primarily affect hourly (nonexempt) employees. These are the people in the less glamourous jobs at the bottom of the ladder, many of them single parents. Right now they finish work exhausted only to come home to a “second shift” that may be equally exhausting. A reduction in the standard workweek would almost certainly improve the quality of life for these hard-pressed and overworked Americans.

By all means, let’s enact a paid leave policy, but let’s also debate some even bigger ideas – ones that could lead to greater work-life balance now, and more job opportunities in the longer run.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared on The Washington Post's In Theory Blog.