DOCSLIB.ORG

Is Fiscal Stimulus an Effective Policy Response to a Recession? Reviewing the Existing Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is Fiscal Stimulus an Effective Policy Response to a Recession? Reviewing the Existing Research FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN June 2020 Is Fiscal Stimulus an Effective Policy Response to a Recession? Reviewing the Existing Research by Jake Fuss, Alex Whalen, and Tegan Hill Summary This report examines existing academic Research also shows that the Canadian studies that analyze evidence regarding the government’s stimulus in response to the 2009 effectiveness of fiscal stimulus—additional recession contributed little, if anything, to the government spending and/or tax relief—as a economic turnaround. mechanism to mitigate the impact of a reces­ Harvard University professor Alberto Ale­ sion and speed up economic recovery. The re­ sina finds that increases in government spend­ search raises significant doubts about whether ing are associated with lower growth, while fiscal stimulus can achieve this objective. stimulus based on decreases in personal and Evidence from University of California— business taxes are associated with higher rates San Diego professor Valerie Ramey and Har­ of economic growth. In addition, Alesina’s work vard University professor Robert Barro dem­ suggests that reductions to government spend­ onstrates that the fiscal multiplier created by ing are an important part of reducing fiscal increased government spending is below 1.0, deficits following a recession. indicating that stimulus measures actually Before implementing any fiscal stimulus crowd out economic activity that would other­ packages, Canadian policymakers must con­ wise have occurred. sider the potential implications on both the Empirical research from Stanford Univer­ economy and government balance sheets. Past sity professor John Taylor shows that the US history suggests that stimulus will not improve stimulus package during the 2008-09 recession the Canadian economy and may even be a det­ failed to increase consumption and had little to riment to it. no effect on economic growth. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 1 Is Fiscal Stimulus an Effective Policy Response to a Recession? Introduction fessors Robert Barro and Alberto Alesina, and Is fiscal stimulus—additional government Stanford University professor John Taylor. spending and/or tax relief—an effective mecha­ Their findings have important implications for nism by which governments can mitigate the Canada as policymakers in this country con­ impact of recessions and speed up economic template their potential response to the recent recovery? This bulletin provides background recession. on the critical question of stimulus, which is al­ ways of interest but particularly so when econ­ Can government spending help the omies are in recession. economy? During the 2008-09 recession, Canadian gov­ University of California—San Diego professor ernments enacted discretionary fiscal stimu­ Valerie Ramey and Harvard University profes­ lus packages in response to the downturn. The sor Robert Barro have conducted decades of stimulus included a mix of tax and spending empirical research assessing the economic im­ measures that included tax cuts, public infra­ plications of fiscal stimulus, specifically, in­ structure spending, and industry subsidies. creases in government spending. The primary purpose of these measures was to Economists generally use a concept called the jump-start the economy. “fiscal multiplier” to help illustrate their find­ There are already calls in Canada and the US ings. The fiscal multiplier shows the impact that for fiscal stimulus in reaction to the recession each additional dollar of government spending induced by the global outbreak of COVID-19 can have on the economy. The logic is that in and the related government policies that have times of economic downturn or recession there slowed or shut down large sectors of the econ­ are underused resources in the economy and omy. Given the importance of this issue, it is that government spending can work to mobi­ appropriate to review the existing research on lize these resources, create jobs, and increase the impact and effectiveness of fiscal stimulus incomes. The theory assumes that once the ef­ programs at achieving their objective to im­ fects of government spending are felt, people prove the growth of the economy. will spend more of their additional income and create a positive ripple effect throughout the This report examines existing academic stud­ economy. Person A receives new money from ies that analyze evidence of the effectiveness the government and spends a significant por­ of fiscal stimulus. The spectrum of research re­ tion of it on goods and services provided by viewed is not meant to be exhaustive and fo­ persons B and C, creating income for persons B cuses narrowly on empirical assessments of and C, who likewise spend a significant portion the effect of fiscal stimulus based on historical of the income on goods and services, and so data and experience, rather than model-based on, and so on. If the multiplier is greater than work. Although the latter literature has impor­ 1.0, then a $1 increase in government spending tant contributions to make, it is less helpful in will increase overall economic output by a value confirming real-world effects from stimulus. greater than $1. For example, a multiplier of 1.5 Notable authors using empirical assessments means that a $1 increase in government spend­ include University of California San Diego pro­ ing raises overall economic activity (i.e., GDP) fessor Valerie Ramey, Harvard University pro­ by $1.50. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 2 Is Fiscal Stimulus an Effective Policy Response to a Recession? It’s important, however, to understand that in­ that the implied multiplier on total GDP is about creased government spending often is financed 0.3, and that tax changes do not have a signifi­ by reductions in spending in other sectors of cant effect on the spending multiplier. Her em­ the economy such as private consumption and pirical data indicated that government spend­ investment. Simply put, government spending ing would not stimulate the private sector, and is not a free lunch. The resources for govern­ in fact, likely crowds out private activity, such as ment spending must come from somewhere. As consumption, investment, or net exports. such, if the multiplier is less than 1, then gov­ ernment spending crowds out economic activ­ ity that would have otherwise taken place. This ... government spending tends is contrary to the objective of fiscal stimulus. to reduce private spending. A study by Ramey (2011) surveyed more than 30 studies to assess the existing literature on Put differently, $1 of additional deficit-financed temporary spending—typical­ ly used in stimulus—and found that the multi­ government spending led to less plier for the United States is likely between 0.8 than $1 of private activity. to 1.5. The study notes that large increases in government spending are typically followed by increases in economically harmful taxes (Burn­ side et al., 2003). For this reason, Ramey con­ The study also explored the impact of govern­ cluded that any estimate should account for the ment spending on labour markets. It found that effect of taxes on the economy. Ramey found while there is an increase in employment from that the existing empirical research indicates government spending, it is almost entirely in the tax multipliers between -0.5 to -5.0, meaning government employment, as opposed to private that even if the spending multiplier is positive, employment, again indicating limited effects on there will be countering effects for future tax the private sector from government spending. increases which may reduce or cancel out any Ramey and Zubairy (2018) conducted further stimulus effects. Overall, the study concluded research to test whether government spending that there is not clear empirical evidence that multipliers differed based on the level of un­ the government spending multiplier is great­ used resources in the economy (ie., “slack”) or er than one, and thus government spending based on interest rates reaching the zero lower does not necessarily stimulate private activity, bound. “Slack states” are defined by an unem­ so overall economic activity might not be im­ ployment rate above 6.5 (higher thresholds are proved from additional government spending. used in robustness checks). The study also re­ In another study, Ramey (2012) used several dif­ viewed multipliers at the point of military news ferent samples, models, and specifications to shocks—using Business Week and other news­ calculate a spending multiplier. She found that papers to identify when individuals expect a across these estimates government spending change in government spending based on news tends to reduce private spending. Put different­ of military spending. The study also reviewed ly, $1 of additional government spending led to multipliers using the Blanchard-Perotti meth­ less than $1 of private activity. Ramey concluded od, which uses information on tax and transfers fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 3 Is Fiscal Stimulus an Effective Policy Response to a Recession? to infer the point of actual government spend­ the direction of causation between spending ing.1 These methods of identification work to and the state of the economy. Put differently, capture both delayed increases in government these studies assume that government defense spending and immediate rises in government spending is less likely to respond to economic spending. events, which makes it easier to determine if such spending has caused a change in econom­ Simply put, the study found that government ic activity. spending multipliers were below 1.0 regardless of the level of slack in the economy. Generally, estimates for the multiplier range between 0.3 and 0.8. These findings are close to the esti­ ... the results indicate that mates from Barro and Redlick (2011). For inter­ government spending had est rates near the zero lower bound, there is also limited evidence that multipliers are great­ a dampening effect on the er than one. The results of this study imply that government spending multipliers are not neces­ economy as opposed to an sarily larger during periods of recession.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fiscal Policy in an Unemployment Crisis∗
    Fiscal Policy in an Unemployment Crisis∗ Pontus Rendahly University of Cambridge, CEPR, and Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM) April 30, 2014 Abstract This paper shows that large fiscal multipliers arise naturally from equilibrium unemploy- ment dynamics. In response to a shock that brings the economy into a liquidity trap, an expansion in government spending increases output and causes a fall in the unemployment rate. Since movements in unemployment are persistent, the effects of current spending linger into the future, leading to an enduring rise in income. As an enduring rise in income boosts private demand, even a temporary increase in government spending sets in motion a virtuous employment-spending spiral with a large associated multiplier. This transmission mechanism contrasts with the conventional view in which fiscal policy may be efficacious only under a prolonged and committed rise in government spending, which engineers a spiral of increasing inflation. Keywords: Fiscal multiplier, liquidity trap, zero lower bound, unemployment inertia. ∗The first version of this paper can be found as Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 1211. yThe author would like to thank Andrea Caggese, Giancarlo Corsetti, Wouter den Haan, Jean-Paul L'Huillier, Giammario Impulitti, Karel Mertens, Emi Nakamura, Kristoffer Nimark, Evi Pappa, Franck Portier, Morten Ravn, Jon Steinsson, Silvana Tenreyro, and Mirko Wiederholt for helpful comments and suggestions. I am grateful to seminar participants at LSE, Royal Economic Society, UCL, European Univer- sity Institute, EIEF, ESSIM 2012, SED 2013, Bonn University, Goethe University, UAB, and in particular to James Costain, and Jonathan Heathcote for helpful discussions and conversations. Financial support is gratefully acknowledge from the Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM) and the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper
    WP 2020-12 December 2020 Working Paper Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7801 USA Social Externalities and Economic Analysis Marc Fleurbaey, Ravi Kanbur, and Brody Viney It is the Policy of Cornell University actively to support equality of educational and employment opportunity. No person shall be denied admission to any educational program or activity or be denied employmen t on the basis of any legally prohibited discrimination involving, but not limited to, such factors as race, color, creed, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, age or handicap. The University is committed to the maintenance of affirmative action prog rams which will assure the continuation of such equality of opportunity. 2 Social Externalities and Economic Analysis Marc Fleurbaey, Ravi Kanbur, Brody Viney ThisThis version: versio Augustn: Aug 6,us 2020t 6, 20201 Abstract This paper considers and assesses the concept of social externalities through human interdependence, in relation to the economic analysis of externalities in the tradition of Pigou and Arrow, including the analysis of the commons. It argues that there are limits to economic analysis. Our proposal is to enlarge the perspective and start thinking about a broader framework in which any pattern of influence of an agent or a group of agents over a third party, which is not mediated by any economic, social, or psychological mechanism guaranteeing the alignment of the marginal net private benefit with marginal net social benefit, can be attached the “externality” label and be scrutinized for the likely negative consequences that result from the divergence .These consequences may be significant given the many interactions between the social and economic realms, and the scope for spillovers and feedback loops to emerge.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Modern Monetary Theory
    An assessment of modern monetary theory M. Kasongo Kashama * Introduction Modern monetary theory (MMT) is a so-called heterodox economic school of thought which argues that elected governments should raise funds by issuing money to the maximum extent to implement the policies they deem necessary. While the foundations of MMT were laid in the early 1990s (Mosler, 1993), its tenets have been increasingly echoed in the public arena in recent years. The surge in interest was first reflected by high-profile British and American progressive policy-makers, for whom MMT has provided a rationale for their calls for Green New Deals and other large public spending programmes. In doing so, they have been backed up by new research work and publications from non-mainstream economists in the wake of Mosler’s work (see, for example, Tymoigne et al. (2013), Kelton (2017) or Mitchell et al. (2019)). As the COVID-19 crisis has been hitting the global economy since early this year, the most straightforward application of MMT’s macroeconomic policy agenda – that is, money- financed fiscal expansion or helicopter money – has returned to the forefront on a wider scale. Some consider not only that it is “time for helicopters” (Jourdan, 2020) but also that this global crisis must become a trigger to build on MMT precepts, not least in the euro area context (Bofinger, 2020). The MMT resurgence has been accompanied by lively political discussions and a heated economic debate, bringing fierce criticism from top economists including P. Krugman, G. Mankiw, K. Rogoff or L. Summers. This short article aims at clarifying what is at stake from a macroeconomic stabilisation perspective when considering MMT implementation in advanced economies, paying particular attention to the euro area.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory
    2021 A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory Steven Globerman fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive Summary / i 1. Introducing Modern Monetary Theory / 1 2. Implementing MMT / 4 3. Has Canada Adopted MMT? / 10 4. Proposed Economic and Social Justifications for MMT / 17 5. MMT and Inflation / 23 Concluding Comments / 27 References / 29 About the author / 33 Acknowledgments / 33 Publishing information / 34 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 35 Purpose, funding, and independence / 35 About the Fraser Institute / 36 Editorial Advisory Board / 37 fraserinstitute.org fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a policy model for funding govern- ment spending. While MMT is not new, it has recently received wide- spread attention, particularly as government spending has increased dramatically in response to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and concerns grow about how to pay for this increased spending. The essential message of MMT is that there is no financial constraint on government spending as long as a country is a sovereign issuer of cur- rency and does not tie the value of its currency to another currency. Both Canada and the US are examples of countries that are sovereign issuers of currency. In principle, being a sovereign issuer of currency endows the government with the ability to borrow money from the country’s cen- tral bank. The central bank can effectively credit the government’s bank account at the central bank for an unlimited amount of money without either charging the government interest or, indeed, demanding repayment of the government bonds the central bank has acquired. In 2020, the cen- tral banks in both Canada and the US bought a disproportionately large share of government bonds compared to previous years, which has led some observers to argue that the governments of Canada and the United States are practicing MMT.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Policy in a Monetary Policy Perspective Björn Lagerwall the Author Works in the Riksbank’S Monetary Policy Department1
    NO 5 2019 Economic 27 May Commentaries Fiscal policy in a monetary policy perspective Björn Lagerwall The author works in the Riksbank’s Monetary Policy Department1 In Sweden and many other countries, the framework for stabilisation policy prior to the global financial crisis was aimed at monetary policy playing the lead role and fiscal policy playing a more passive role. But in the wake of the global financial crisis, this view has at least partly been reassessed – towards greater focus on fiscal policy. What are in fact the arguments for this reassessment? We will look Prior to the global financial crisis, more closely at some of them in this Economic Commentary, based on recent the framework for stabilisation research and discussion both internationally and in Sweden. policy, in both Sweden and many One argument has to do with low global interest rates having reduced the other countries, gave monetary scope of monetary policy to, where necessary, provide further stimulus to the policy the lead role. Afterwards, this view has been partly economy. But the low interest rates can also increase the scope of fiscal policy to reassessed – towards a greater stimulate the economy without jeopardising the sustainability of public finances. focus on fiscal policy. Based on Another argument is that many empirical studies have shown that the effects on recent research and discussion, two main reasons for why this household consumption of temporary fiscal policy stimuli may be significantly view has changed can be greater than previously thought. identified, both of which are This Economic Commentary also discusses the interaction between fiscal and discussed in this Economic .
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Policy and Inflation Volatility
    WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 317 / MARCH 2004 FISCAL POLICY AND INFLATION VOLATILITY by Philipp C. Rother WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 317 / MARCH 2004 FISCAL POLICY AND INFLATION VOLATILITY1 by Philipp C. Rother 2 In 2004 all publications will carry This paper can be downloaded without charge from a motif taken http://www.ecb.int or from the Social Science Research Network from the €100 banknote. electronic library at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=515081. 1 I thank Silvia Ardagna, Jürgen von Hagen, colleagues at the ECB and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Central Bank. 2 European Central Bank, Kaiserstrasse 29, D-60311 Frankfurt am Main. Fax: +496913446000. Tel: +491613446398. Email: [email protected] . © European Central Bank, 2004 Address Kaiserstrasse 29 60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Postal address Postfach 16 03 19 60066 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Telephone +49 69 1344 0 Internet http://www.ecb.int Fax +49 69 1344 6000 Telex 411 144 ecb d All rights reserved. Reproduction for educational and non- commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the European Central Bank. The statement of purpose for the ECB Working Paper Series is available from the ECB website, http://www.ecb.int. ISSN 1561-0810 (print) ISSN 1725-2806 (online) CONTENTS Abstract 4 Non-technical summary 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature 8 2.1. Growth effects of inflation volatility 8 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal and Monetary Policy Working Together to Create an Economy That Behaves Reasonably Under All Conditions
    Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy Following the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, many of the market from becoming dangerously severe. The people cited the United States’ free market as its key government primarily influences the economy through its advantage over the state-controlled economy of the use of the federal monetary and fiscal policies. USSR. Capitalism seemed to have won the day and many Americans reaped the benefits of an unfettered Fiscal Policy market. U.S. fiscal policy is simply how the government uses taxation and spending (i.e. the U.S. budget) to influence But it is a mistake to believe that our “free market” the economy. When the economy is running above or stands completely detached from the government. The below its optimal level, the government can alter the truth is the government uses numerous policies and budget to influence its level of output. plans to influence the economy and keep swings in the market from getting out of hand. If, for instance, the economy is on a powerful upswing and in danger of overheating, the government may Government and the Economy choose to raise taxes or decrease spending to remove The drawback to the fierce competition and effort some money from the market. Or, if the economy is required by capitalism is that the economy can be slow, the government might increase its spending as a subject to boom and bust cycles. When an economy is way to create jobs until consumer demand rises. strong, people tend to spend more and invest in long- term plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Stimulus and the Great Recession
    The Daily Dish Revisiting Stimulus and the Great Recession DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN | OCTOBER 21, 2020 Eakinomics: Revisiting Stimulus and the Great Recession There has been a steady drumbeat of calls for additional “stimulus” to counter the fallout of the COVID-19 recession. I want to stipulate that I think the case can be made for an appropriately structured fiscal bill, but the case is not being made in a compelling fashion. A key part of the argument has been that stimulus got cut off after the 2008-09 recession and doomed the economy to slow growth. A New York Times article, entitled “ Why the U.S. Risks Repeating 2009’s Economic Stimulus Mistakes,” is typical. “‘The initial response was good, but we need more,’ said Karen Dynan, who was chief economist at the Treasury Department in the Obama administration and now teaches at Harvard. The decision to pull back on spending a decade ago, she said, ‘really prolonged the period of weakness after the great recession.’” (This argument is most often made by former Obama Administration officials.) Maybe. But maybe there is another lesson from that era. The first is that if you are going to do fiscal stimulus, do fiscal stimulus. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) contained some tax cuts and social safety net transfers of the typical stimulus ilk. But it contained a slew of provisions – e.g., health services information technologies and green investments – that were transformative in nature and core parts of the Obama domestic agenda. Transformation is not stimulus, which is just putting back in place what was previously there.
    [Show full text]
  • Deflation: Economic Significance, Current Risk, and Policy Responses
    Deflation: Economic Significance, Current Risk, and Policy Responses Craig K. Elwell Specialist in Macroeconomic Policy August 30, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40512 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Deflation: Economic Significance, Current Risk, and Policy Responses Summary Despite the severity of the recent financial crisis and recession, the U.S. economy has so far avoided falling into a deflationary spiral. Since mid-2009, the economy has been on a path of economic recovery. However, the pace of economic growth during the recovery has been relatively slow, and major economic weaknesses persist. In this economic environment, the risk of deflation remains significant and could delay sustained economic recovery. Deflation is a persistent decline in the overall level of prices. It is not unusual for prices to fall in a particular sector because of rising productivity, falling costs, or weak demand relative to the wider economy. In contrast, deflation occurs when price declines are so widespread and sustained that they cause a broad-based price index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), to decline for several quarters. Such a continuous decline in the price level is more troublesome, because in a weak or contracting economy it can lead to a damaging self-reinforcing downward spiral of prices and economic activity. However, there are also examples of relatively benign deflations when economic activity expanded despite a falling price level. For instance, from 1880 through 1896, the U.S. price level fell about 30%, but this coincided with a period of strong economic growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetary and Fiscal Policy Interactions in a New Keynesian Model with Capital Accumulation and Non-Ricardian Consumers
    WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 649 / JUNE 2006 MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICY INTERACTIONS IN A NEW KEYNESIAN MODEL WITH CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AND NON-RICARDIAN CONSUMERS ISSN 1561081-0 by Campbell Leith 9 771561 081005 and Leopold von Thadden WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 649 / JUNE 2006 MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICY INTERACTIONS IN A NEW KEYNESIAN MODEL WITH CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AND NON-RICARDIAN CONSUMERS 1 by Campbell Leith 2 and Leopold von Thadden 3 In 2006 all ECB publications will feature This paper can be downloaded without charge from a motif taken http://www.ecb.int or from the Social Science Research Network from the €5 banknote. electronic library at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=908620 1 Comments on an early version of this paper by Martin Ellison, George von Fuerstenberg, Heinz Herrmann, Leo Kaas, Jana Kremer, Eric Leeper, Massimo Rostagno, Andreas Schabert, Harald Uhlig as well as seminar participants at the European Central Bank, the Deutsche Bundesbank, the University of Konstanz, the CEPR-conference on “The implications of alternative fiscal rules for monetary policy” (Helsinki, 2004), and at the annual meetings of the Econometric Society (Madrid, 2004), the German Economic Association (Dresden, 2004), and the Royal Economic Society (Nottingham, 2005) are gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Central Bank. 2 Department of Economics, Adam Smith Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RT, United Kingdom; e-mail: [email protected] 3 European Central Bank, Kaiserstrasse 29, 60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] © European Central Bank, 2006 Address Kaiserstrasse 29 60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Postal address Postfach 16 03 19 60066 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Telephone +49 69 1344 0 Internet http://www.ecb.int Fax +49 69 1344 6000 Telex 411 144 ecb d All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Bank Independence and Fiscal Policy: Incentives to Spend and Constraints on the Executive
    Central Bank Independence and Fiscal Policy: Incentives to Spend and Constraints on the Executive Cristina Bodea Michigan State University Masaaki Higashijima Michigan State University Accepted at the British Journal of Political Science Word count: 12146 Abstract Independent central banks prefer balanced budgets due to the long-run connection between deficits and inflation and can enforce their preference through interest rate increases and denial of credit to the government. We argue that legal central bank independence (CBI) deters fiscal deficits predominantly in countries with rule of law and impartial contract enforcement, a free press and constraints on executive power. More, we suggest that CBI may not affect fiscal deficits in a counter-cyclical fashion, but, rather, depending on the electoral calendar and government partisanship. We test our hypotheses with new yearly data on legal CBI for 78 countries from 1970 to 2007. Results show that CBI restrains deficits only in democracies, during non-election years and under left government tenures. 1 1. Introduction In the 1990s countries worldwide started to reform their central bank laws, removing monetary policy from the hands of the government. This means that the newly independent central banks can change interest rates, target the exchange rate or the money supply to ensure price stability or low inflation1, without regard to incumbent approval ratings or re-election prospects. Because central bank independence (CBI) has been designed as an institutional mechanism for keeping a check on inflation, most analyses focus on the effect of such independence on inflation and its potential trade-off with economic growth (Grilli 1991, Cukierman et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Income, Liquidity, and the Consumption Response to the 2020 Economic Stimulus Payments Scott R
    Income, Liquidity, and the Consumption Response to the 2020 Economic Stimulus Payments Scott R. Baker, R. A. Farrokhnia, Steffen Meyer, Michaela Pagel, and Constantine Yannelis NBER Working Paper No. 27097 May 2020, Revised in September 2020 JEL No. D14,E21,G51 ABSTRACT The 2020 CARES Act directed large cash payments to households. We analyze house-holds’ spending responses using high-frequency transaction data from a Fintech non-profit, exploring heterogeneity by income levels, recent income declines, and liquidity as well as linked survey responses about economic expectations. Households respond rapidly to the re-ceipt of stimulus payments, with spending increasing by $0.25-$0.40 per dollar of stimulus during the first weeks. Households with lower incomes, greater income drops, and lower lev-els of liquidity display stronger responses highlighting the importance of targeting. Liquidity plays the most important role, with no significant spending response for households with large checking account balances. Households that expect employment losses and benefit cuts dis-play weaker responses to the stimulus. Relative to the effects of previous economic stimulus programs in 2001 and 2008, we see faster effects, smaller increases in durables spending, larger increases in spending on food, and substantial increases in payments like rents, mortgages, and credit cards reflecting a short- term debt overhang. We formally show that these differences can make direct payments less effective in stimulating aggregate consumption. Scott R. Baker Michaela Pagel Kellogg School of Management Columbia Business School Northwestern University 3022 Broadway 2211 Campus Drive Uris Hall Evanston, IL 60208 New York, NY 10027 and NBER and NBER [email protected] [email protected] R.
    [Show full text]