Much of the campaign debate is over which presidential candidate can help the economy most, but many economists suggest another view — that a president has little influence on the economy.

There are cycles to the economy, with expansions and contractions. The length of growth periods, as well as recessions, can be reinforced or countered by government policies, but most factors that drive the economy are beyond the president’s control.

The Federal Reserve probably has more control over the economy than the president.

In the current economy, decribed as a financial recession, the public is wisely deleveraging, reducing debt by paying down credit card balances and being conservative when it comes to spending. After collapsing as part of the financial crisis of 2008, the housing market appears to be coming off the bottom of its cycle and is expected to recover, but slowly.

Given these circumstances, the economy appears to be on a track to recovery. Maybe not next year, but within two or three years. Still, there are two major challenges threatening a more robust economic recovery.

The first is the so-called fiscal cliff that involves simultaneous tax increases through the expiration of tax breaks and reductions in government spending as required by the sequester plan put in place following the failure of the supercommittee in Congress to reach a comprehensive deficit-reduction plan last fall.

In addition to the risk to the economy posed by the fiscal cliff, the fragile global economy is another problem. With Europe the number one trading partner for the United States, the economic struggles in Greece, Spain, Portugal and other European countries is a real risk for the U.S. economy. In addition, slowdowns in China and Brazil also pose threats to a healthier recovery in the United States, because of the dampened demand for exports.

Despite the promises by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to fix the economy and create jobs, the power of any president to directly and quickly improve job numbers is limited.

Government actions, including tax policy, government spending and perennial deficits as well as government regulation can impede or stimulate business investment and job growth. But the influence is still limited.

Because stronger economic recovery is expected in the next four years, both parties see compounded rewards to capturing the White House in this election. Party leaders know that whoever is president when the recovery is stronger can claim his policies were responsible for the turnaround. The claim will be made, even if most economists argue the connection is hard to prove.

Voters should understand this, and question candidates’ claims.