Ben Bernanke and Democratic Helicopter Money

“The fact that no responsible government would ever literally drop money from the sky should not prevent us from exploring the logic of Friedman’s thought experiment, which was designed to show—in admittedly extreme terms—why governments should never have to give in to deflation.”

The quote above is from a post by Ben Bernanke (who, in case anyone does not know, used to be in charge of US monetary policy). I put it up front because it expresses a macroeconomic truth that no one should ever forget: persistent recessions and deflation are never inevitable, and always represent the failure of policy makers to do the right thing.

There are many useful points in his post, but I just want to talk about one: Bernanke is in fact not talking about helicopter money in its traditional sense, but what I have called elsewhere ‘democratic helicopter money’.

When most people talk about HM, they imagine some scheme whereby the central bank sends ‘everyone’ a cheque in the post, or transmits some money to each individual some other way. It is what economists would call a reverse lump sum tax, or reverse poll tax: the amount you get is independent of your income. That makes it different from a normal tax cut.

In practice the central bank could only really do this with the cooperation of governments. It would not want to take the decision about what everyone means on its own. (Do we include children or not. How do we find everyone?) But once those details had been sorted out, a system would be in place that the central bank could operate whenever it needed to.

Bernanke suggests an alternative. The central bank sets aside a sum of newly created money, and the fiscal authorities then spend it as they wish. They could decide to use all the money to build bridges or schools rather than give it to individuals. There might be two reasons for doing HM this way. First, for some reason the fiscal authorities are reluctant to spend if they have to fund it by creating more debt, so it may allow them to get around this (normally self-imposed) ‘constraint’. Second, a money financed fiscal expansion could be more expansionary than a bond financed fiscal expansion. Lets leave the second advantage to one side, as the first is sufficient in a world obsessed by government debt.

I have talked about something similar in the past (first here, but later here and here), which I have called democratic helicopter money. This label also seems appropriate for Bernanke’s scheme, because the elected government decides on the form of fiscal expansion. The difference between what I had discussed earlier under this label and Bernanke’s suggestion is that in my scheme the fiscal authorities and the central bank talk to each other before deciding on how much money to create and what it will be spent on (although the initiative always comes from the central bank, and would only happen in a recession where interest rates were at their lower bound). The reason I think talking would be preferable is simply that it helps the central bank decide how much money it needs to create. [1]

Imagine, for example, you had a fiscal authority in one country that wanted to spend the money on ‘shovel ready’ public investment projects, and an authority in another country that wanted to spend it on some temporary tax cuts for the rich. The impact of the two different stimulus policies on demand and output are very different. If the two economies were in similar conjunctural positions, then the central bank with the tax cutting fiscal authorities would want to create a lot more money than would be required in the other economy.

In some countries it is easier for central banks to talk to the fiscal authorities than in others. When it is difficult, Bernanke’s scheme may appear attractive, but it leaves the central bank somewhat in the dark about how much money it needs to create. The big advantage of the more popular conception of HM (a cheque in the post) is that the impact of any money creation is much clearer. (As it is important to end recessions quickly, waiting to see what happens is not helpful advice.)

When central banks and governments do happily talk to each other (as in the UK, for example) then my version of democratic HM becomes an option. Arguments that this makes the central bank less independent are spurious in my view. The central bank initiates the discussion, in clearly defined circumstances. They simply ask what the government would spend any newly created money on. This question should be accompanied by the central bank’s current view on what the multipliers for various fiscal options are. The government then makes a choice, and the central bank then decides how much money to create.

While democratic HM is not talked about much among economists (Bernanke excepted), I think there are good political economy reasons why it may be the form of HM that is eventually tried. As I have said, conventional HM of the cheque in the post kind almost certainly requires the involvement of government. Once governments realise what is going on, they may naturally think why set up something new when they could decide how the money is spent themselves in a more traditional manner. Democratic HM is essentially a method of doing a money financed fiscal expansion in a world of independent central banks.

Which brings me back to the quote at the head of this post. The straight macroeconomics of most versions of HM is clear: all the discussion is about institutional and distributional details. If it is beyond us to manage to set in place any of them before the next recession that would be a huge indictment of our collective imagination, and is probably a testament to the power of imaginary fears and taboos created in very different circumstances.

[1] A sequential set-up of the kind Bernanke suggests is also more vulnerable to cheating: the government uses the money to finance something they were going to do anyway, and in effect largely offsets the money creation by reducing its own borrowing. 

Central Bank Independence and MMT

This is a follow up to my last post on Corbyn and central bank independence (CBI). No apologies for returning to this topic: not often do you get to talk about policies that are in the process of being formulated. One of the influences that is said to be important for John McDonnell (the new shadow Chancellor) and his advisors is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

A comment I sometimes get on my posts is that my arguments are similar to those put forward by followers of MMT. I have not read much MMT literature, but in what I have read I have normally not found anything I take great exception to. On some issues, like the way monetary policy continues to be presented in textbooks, they definitely have good reason to complain about the mainstream. However their account of the way monetary and fiscal policy work seems quite a close match to what many mainstream economists think, which I guess is why my arguments can be similar to theirs.

One area of apparent difference, however, is CBI. You will sometimes hear MMT people talk about CBI being a ‘sham’, whereas mainstream macro attaches great importance to CBI. So which is right? Part of the problem here is that CBI in the UK (where the government decides the goal the Bank has to achieve) is rather different from that in the US (where the Fed has much more discretion over the choice of targets) and the Eurozone (where the ECB is largely unaccountable and has huge power). I’m just going to talk about the UK set up. (For a MMT perspective on the US, see here.)

CBI in the UK, established by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls in 1997, is no sham. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) decides when and by how much to change interest rates, and government has no influence on the MPC. How do I know this? From observation and from a huge number of conversations with MPC members. Since 2009 the MPC has decided when and by how much to do QE. Any Treasury authorisation to do QE was a formalisation that essentially followed Bank wishes, but it never specified when and how much QE should happen. So a fair description of the UK set up is that the government defines the goals and instruments of policy, and the MPC decides how to use those instruments to best meet those goals.

I would agree with the comment that this set up leaves the government taking big strategic decisions, like what the target should be. But CBI as defined in the UK still has two major advantages over the pre-1997 alternative

1. party political motives for changing interest rates are ruled out. I know such motives influenced at least the timing of rate changes before 1997. (How do I know - same answer as before.)
   
   
2. it forces governments to be explicit about their goals, and the relative priorities among these. I personally believe this has an important role in conditioning (but not determining) expectations, which is very useful. (Yes you can call me a New Keynesian for this reason.)
   
   

You could add time inconsistency and credibility issues in there as well if you like. (Giving this to secondary importance perhaps makes me less of a New Keynesian.)

Are there any negatives to set against this? One argument you often hear is that CBI is anti-democratic, but I really think this is just nonsense in the UK context. Government delegates technical decisions all the time, and as long as there is strong accountability (which in the UK there is), the right people are on the MPC and they are truly independent (from government or the financial sector) this works well. When governments only face elections every 5 years and elections are won or lost over a whole range of issues, quite why a Chancellor deciding when to change rates following secret advice is more democratic is unclear. It also improves democracy because, as Chris points out, the Chancellor is not held to account for the technical mistakes of his advisors.

A more important argument against CBI is that it makes money financed fiscal expansion much more difficult. A government that is obsessed by the size of its deficit might not undertake a bond financed fiscal expansion when a fiscal expansion is needed. It might have undertaken a money financed fiscal expansion, but CBI prevents it doing this because the central bank controls money creation. However this problem can be easily avoided by (a) taking a more sensible view of government deficits and debt, as MMT would also advocate, or (b) allowing helicopter money.

It is (a) that makes the debate over Corbyn’s QE particularly ironic. A National Investment Bank can be set up perfectly well based on borrowing from the market, and you can ensure it gets the funds it needs by a government guarantee. The only reason you would avoid trying to do that is because the NIB debt would count as part of the government’s deficit, and you were worried about the size of the deficit. The last people who should be worried in this way are followers of MMT.

Scott Fullwiler has an elaborate discussion of why Corbyn’s QE does not interfere with CBI, but concludes: “As such, government guaranteed debt of the NIB would be effectively the same thing as plain vanilla deficits, which as shown above is not different in a macroeconomically significant way from Overt Monetary Financing of Government via People's QE.” Which begs the question, why not go with plain vanilla deficits to fund the NIB. If it is because you are worried about the political costs of higher deficits, that will be as nothing compared to the political costs of instructing the Bank to finance a NIB.

So where does this apparent antagonism for CBI come from? Perhaps it comes from a tendency of some from the mainstream to make too much of CBI. To imply that the more independent a central bank is the better, regardless of who determines goals, whether there is accountability and who makes the decisions. Proof that independence is not all that matters is provided by the ECB. But we should not let the bad drive out the good. If Labour abandons the innovations made by Brown and Balls, I think it will be a classic example of the triumph of ideology over both good economics and self interest. 

People's QE and Corbyn’s QE

Politicians can be adept at co-opting attractive sounding terms to their own cause, even when they distort their meaning while doing so. Osborne announced what was in reality a partial but large increase in the minimum wage, but he called it a ‘living wage’. This was especially devious, as calculations of the actual living wage take into account the tax credits that Osborne was at the same time cutting.

Is Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Peoples QE’ an example of the same thing? It is certainly true that the way that some macroeconomists, including myself, have used the term is different from Corbyn’s idea. For us Peoples QE is just another term for helicopter money. Helicopter money was a term first used by that well known radical Milton Friedman. It involves the central bank creating money, and distributing it directly to the people by some means. It is a sure fire way [1] for the central bank to boost demand: what economists sometimes call a money financed fiscal stimulus.

The idea has been recently revived, most prominently in the UK by Adair Turner, because of the failure of conventional monetary policy (changing interest rates) to bring a quick end to the Great Recession, which in turn is because governments were undertaking fiscal austerity (a bond financed fiscal contraction) rather than fiscal stimulus. In contrast central banks in Japan, the US and UK, and now the Eurozone, have been creating money to buy financial assets (mainly government debt), which is called Quantitative Easing (QE). Hence the term People’s QE for helicopter money: instead of the central bank creating money to buy assets, it creates money and gives it to the people.

The genesis of Corbyn’s QE seems rather different. Corbyn adviser Richard Murphy had previously suggested what he called a Green Infrastructure QE, which is that a “new [QE] programme should buy the new debt that will be issued in the form of bonds by the Green Investment Bank to fund sustainable energy, local authorities to pay for new houses, NHS trusts to build new hospitals and education authorities to build schools.” This in turn is related to two ideas: first a near universal view among macroeconomists that public sector investment in infrastructure should be rising not falling when interest rates are low and labour is cheap, and second that a National Investment Bank (NIB) might be useful in helping to encourage private sector investment. (See, for example, the recommendations of the LSE growth commission.)

The main difference between helicopter money and Corbyn’s QE therefore seems to be where the money created by the central bank goes: to individuals in the form of a cheque from the central bank, or to financing investment projects. I think that is wrong, and to see why we need to ask an obvious question: what is this policy innovation designed to achieve. I think it is here that confusion has arisen.

As I noted above, the idea behind helicopter money is to provide a tool for the central bank to use when interest rate changes are no longer possible or effective. With an independent central bank, that means that they, not the government, get to decide when helicopter money happens. In contrast, if your goal is to increase either public or private investment (or both) for a prolonged period, then its timing and amount should be something the government decides. While QE is hopefully going to be something that is unusual and rare, the goal of an investment bank is generally thought to be more long term, and not something that only happens in severe recessions.

For that reason, Corbyn’s QE looks like one of those ideas that is superficially attractive because it seems to kill two birds with one stone, but on reflection turns out to be a bad idea. If we want to keep an independent central bank we do not want the government putting the bank under pressure to do QE because the government wants more investment, and if that does not happen we do not want the central bank deciding whether extra investment happens. Indeed some of those who dislike the idea of helicopter money have already been using Corbyn’s QE to say ‘I told you helicopter money was a slippery slope that would lead to the end of central bank independence’.

However I think it is unfair and unproductive to leave it there. Suppose that a NIB is created, not on the back of QE but using more conventional forms of finance. (If the government wants to encourage it, just directly subsidise that finance with conventional borrowing. Don’t be put off doing so by deficit fetishism.) Suppose we also like the concept of helicopter money - not for now, but for the next time interest rates hit their lower bound and the central bank wants more stimulus. In those circumstances, it might well make sense for helicopter money to be used not only to send cheques to individuals, but also to bring forward investment financed by the NIB, or public sector investment financed directly by the state. If those investment projects could get off the ground quickly, and crucially would not have happened for some time otherwise, then what I have elsewhere described as ‘democratic helicopter money’ would make sense. [2] This is because investment that also boosts the supply side is likely to be a far more effective form of stimulus than cheques posted to individuals.

So one day, this form of Corbyn’s QE could happen. But we need to get the idea of helicopter money, and the need for public investment and a National Investment Bank, accepted in their own right first. Putting the two ideas together right now is misconceived, and is in danger of discrediting two potentially good ideas.

[1] Unless you believe in complete Ricardian Equivalence

[2] When I put forward the idea of ‘democratic helicopter money’ here to Tim Harford, Tim responded that he thought it was probably the most radical and politically infeasible idea of those he had canvassed. If Corbyn wins, I will have pleasure in reminding him of that!  

Can helicopter money be democratic?

Helicopter money started as an abstract thought experiment: money would be created and just distributed to individuals by helicopter. If we think of a consolidated government which includes its central bank, then it is clear that in technical terms this is a combination of monetary policy (the creation of money) and fiscal policy (the government giving individuals money). Economists call such combinations a money financed fiscal stimulus. With the advent of Quantitative Easing (QE), it has also been called QE for the people.

Some have tried to suggest that central banks could undertake helicopter money for the first time without the involvement of governments. This is a fantasy that those who dislike the idea of government have concocted. Others who dislike the idea of fiscal policy have suggested that helicopter money is not really a fiscal transfer. That is also nonsense.

Helicopter money is a particular form of money financed fiscal stimulus. It has two key features among the class of all possible money financed fiscal measures. The first is that it involves a particular kind of fiscal policy. A helicopter would distribute this fiscal transfer randomly, but what most people have in mind is an equal distribution to every person (adult?) - a kind of reverse poll tax, or what economists would call a lump sum transfer. The second is that, once the apparatus for helicopter money had been established by the government, its use would be initiated by the central bank, whereas other fiscal transfers are initiated by the government.

I want to suggest that it is this second aspect that is critical. You could imagine the government making a transfer to every person, and you could also imagine the central bank distributing money to only those people who paid income tax the previous year. The fact that helicopter money is initiated by the central bank seems more like a defining characteristic. If helicopter money could be ordered by the government, we would say that the central bank was no longer independent.

This defining feature of helicopter money is also what makes it attractive from the point of view of macroeconomic stabilisation. It removes the Achilles’ heel of the consensus assignment. The consensus assignment allocates demand stabilisation entirely to monetary policy run by independent central banks, while fiscal policy’s role at the aggregate level is to focus on deficits and debt. The Achilles’ heel is that interest rates can no longer be used to control demand when they hit their lower bound. QE tries to fill that gap, but helicopter money would be much more reliable and effective. Of course governments could make the transfers themselves through deficit finance [1], but the evidence of the last few years is overwhelmingly that they become fixated with reducing deficits in a deep recession with the result that we get fiscal contraction rather than stimulus.

This last point raises a potential problem with helicopter money, which is that government may take the opportunity to offset its impact by raising taxes or reducing transfers, and we end up simply monetising part of government debt. One would hope that does not happen for three related reasons: first, governments are rather less agile than central banks, second, good governments should be working with fiscal rules that specify a medium term plan for deficits, and third the monetary stimulus is only temporary, so there would be little long term benefit in terms of deficit reduction if governments tried to play this game. [2]

If initiation by the central bank is the defining feature of helicopter money, and this policy always requires the cooperation of government, might it be possible to imagine a form of helicopter money that was more ‘democratic’? Why could the central bank not give the government the money, on condition that it was used to increase transfers or reduce taxes in some way? A left wing government might decide that, rather than giving money to everyone including the rich, it would be better to increase transfers to the poor. A right wing government might decide it should only go to ‘hard working families’, and turn it into a tax break. We could call this democratic helicopter money.

I can see two problems with democratic helicopter money. Suppose the government decided to use the money for a tax break that went to people with a very low marginal propensity to consume. If the central bank fixes the scale of the monetary stimulus beforehand, it makes that stimulus much less effective. If it increases the size of the stimulus following the government’s decision on how to spend it, this gives perverse incentives to government: think of inefficient ways to stimulate the economy, and we will give you more money.

One way to reduce such problems is for the central bank and government to cooperate over the size and form of any money financed fiscal stimulus. This could have added benefits. Most studies, and theory, suggest that the most effective fiscal stimulus tool is to bring forward public investment projects. With democratic helicopter money, the central bank and government could cooperate on this policy, rather than or as well as implementing a tax cut or transfer. However such cooperation creates a second potential problem, which is that it puts at risk the perception (and perhaps the reality) that the central bank was both independent and non-political.

Given these problems, why even think about democratic helicopter money? One reason may be political. A long time ago I proposed giving the central bank limited powers to make temporary changes to a small set of predefined tax rates, and I found myself defending that idea in front of the UK’s Treasury Select Committee. To say that the MPs were none too keen on my idea would be an understatement. Making helicopter money democratic may be what has to happen to get politicians to support the idea.

[1] Combined with QE, this could become a money financed fiscal stimulus. An alternative way of avoiding this deficit fixation is to get governments to adopt a fiscal rule where, when interest rates were likely to hit the lower bound, the central bank in cooperation with the fiscal council proposes increasing the deficit by adopting a fiscal stimulus package of a particular size. This is the proposal in Portes and Wren-Lewis (2014). If instead the stimulus package was money financed, it becomes helicopter money.

[2] None of these considerations, even collectively, rule out the possibility that governments could negate helicopter money in this way. This point and the previous footnote show that all we are really talking about here is the effectiveness of different institutional mechanisms of persuading governments to allow fiscal stimulus in a recession, and to avoid the adoption of austerity.