Blog Post

Helicopter drops reloaded

What’s at stake: Central banks have recently been scaling up their unconventional monetary policy measures. Discussions about helicopter money seem to be getting ever louder. We review the theoretical discussions, the effectiveness of tax-rebates and legal and political complications

By: and Date: March 14, 2016 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

Helicopter money and its popularity

In a paper delivered to the IMF, Adair Turner  argues that monetary finance of fiscal deficits (helicopter money) is both technically feasible and desirable. There is no doubt that helicopter money will stimulate aggregate nominal demand, and in some circumstances it is even a better and less risky tool than any of the available alternatives. These alternative options include  negative interest rates, debt-financed fiscal deficits, quantitative easing, forward guidance, or a combination of debt-financed fiscal stimulus plus quantitative easing.

Tony Yates looks at the symbolic power of Turner’s statements, which show how far the crisis had brought previously fringe ideas into the mainstream. Turner, who was once considered a potential Governor of the Bank of England, is now writing forcefully about the advantages of helicopter money. He is even pushing it as an option to be preferred over debt-financed fiscal policy and forward guidance.

Choosing between negative interest rates and helicopter money

However, Yates is unconvinced by Turner’s assertion that helicopter money is a less dangerous option for the economy than negative interest rates. In fact, this sets up a false choice. Yates argues that helicopter money effectively lowers interest rates, by increasing the supply of money and liquidity  (because of a reduction in the liquidity premium on securities). It is not possible to control both the quantity and price of money at the same time. The argument that a central bank can require banks to hold reserves and charge whatever negative rates it likes on the reserves is not sufficient. This is just a tax, which will not prevent the injection of money affecting the interest rates on all other assets. Helicopter drops might have the same effect that which worries Turner concerning negative interest rates: it can lead, through lower interest rates, to excessive borrowing and leverage.

Krugman points out that this misses Turner’s point, which is all about the effect of helicopter money on expectations. His idea is that helicopter drops and negative interest rates have different implications because they have different effects on expectations about the future. This confusion might be due to the fact that Yates is using a static IS/LM-type model. However, Krugman also sees a weakness in Turner’s argument.  The method by which monetary base is injected into the economy does not have a clear causal link with expectations. On the one hand, you could have perfectly conventional monetary expansion now, coupled with a promise never to withdraw the monetary injection. On the other, you could have a helicopter drop which is nonetheless ineffective because people believe that the central bank will eventually do whatever it takes to bring the monetary base back to its previous trend. The real point should be that measures to raise expectations of future inflation, whatever they are, do indeed offer an alternative to negative interest rates. It is always about expectations.

Yates believes that what Krugman is drawing attention to is the difference between the liquidity effect of a monetary expansion, which is captured in IS/LM, and the Fisher effect, which is not. However Yates does not think that Turner is making a case that the Fisher effect kicks in earlier than with a conventional monetary policy loosening: this case is arguable, perhaps the ‘shock and awe’ element of helicopters would be so powerful that the Fisher effect dominates right away. But Turner does not stress this. Part of his case for helicopter money is that – so he argues – it works more effectively if expectations are not very forward-looking. But it is these same expectational effects that determine the speed with which the Fisher effect works on the nominal interest rate.  If we downplay them, then we slow down the point at which the Fisher effect outweighs the liquidity effect.

So, to restate, helicopter money involves taking your hands off interest rates for a while.  It might be more stimulative than lowering rates from their current level, or it might not, but it works partly through exactly the same interest rate channel as lowering interest rates directly.

Simon Wren-Lewis writes that we are in a world of inflation targeting. Anything that raises demand will tend to raise inflation, and so the monetary authorities will tend to raise nominal interest rates. This leads Wren-Lewis to conclude that there are two possible outcomes from helicopter money. It could be that the nominal interest rate lower bound constraint continues to bite. This means that helicopter money will leave nominal interest rates unchanged, but the economy better off Or it could be that there is no constraint (or that constraint is removed), in which case rates will rise (sooner) with helicopter money.

Is there a trade-off between helicopter money and counter-cyclical fiscal policy?

Wren-Lewis also addresses a second topic: whether helicopter money in some way precludes undertaking counter-cyclical fiscal policy. It does not. One lesson of the Great Recession is that we cannot rely on governments to do the right thing with fiscal actions, so the availability helicopter money instruments could act as an insurance policy actionable by central banks to counteract inappropriate government fiscal policy. If governments do spend more or tax less as we approach the zero lower bound, that insurance policy may not be needed. Nevertheless, even if governments try to do the right thing, a lack of good projects or information delays may mean they do not do enough. In this case the very quick action that central banks could take with helicopter money could be a useful complement. To put it another way, helicopter money is best seen as an alternative to QE rather than as an alternative to fiscal action.

On the effectiveness of stimulus payments

Helicopter drops have never been implemented in the real world (except like this). However, one-off tax rebates can give an indication of what to expect. Parker and coauthors measured the response of household spending to the economic stimulus payments (ESPs) disbursed in mid-2008 as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. They find that, on average, households spent about 12-30% (depending on the specification) of their stimulus payments on nondurable expenditures during the three-month period in which the payments were received. Further, there was also a substantial increase in spending on durable goods, bringing the average total spending response to about 50-90% of the payments. In a more recent paper, Parker asks why households do not smooth consumption. He evaluates the theoretical explanations for the propensity of households to increase spending in response to the arrival of predictable, lump-sum payments, looking at households in the Nielsen Consumer Panel who received $25 million in Federal stimulus payments in 2008. The pattern of spending is inconsistent with models in which identical households cycle through high and low response states as they manage liquidity. Instead, the propensity to spend is a persistent household trait, which is unrelated to expectation errors and highly related to a measure of impatience.

Legal and political feasibility of helicopter drops

Cullen Roche points out that the Fed does not in fact own a helicopter. First, the Fed does not control the quantity of deficit spending. Congress sets the size of the deficit (outside of automatic stabilisers) and the Fed can be said to “monetise” it after the fact. So, even if it chooses to “monetise” this debt the Fed cannot increase the quantity. It cannot just force Congress to spend more. Even if the Fed “monetises”, then the Fed is just engaging in asset swaps such as QE – thereby swapping very safe bonds for very safe cash.  Calling this “monetisation” is probably misleading. Second, the Fed has no legal authority to implement an actual helicopter drop. It is legally bound in its ability to swap assets with the private sector. These are generally limited to government-guaranteed assets.  So, not only is it impossible for the Fed to fire cash into people’s wallets without taking something nearly equal out of their front pocket (the aforementioned asset swap), Roche would argue that the Fed does not even own a helicopter in the first place.

On political feasibility, Turner in his piece states that the most important issues are in fact political. Once we recognise that monetary finance is feasible, and remove any legal or conventional impediments to its use, political dynamics may lead to its excessive use. The most important question relating to monetary finance is therefore whether it is possible to construct a set of rules and responsibilities which will guard against its dangerous misuse, while still enabling its use in appropriate quantities and in appropriate circumstances.

Lonergan sees the case quite differently, and states that helicopter drops in the euro area may be a legal obligation of the European Central Bank (ECB). The trick lies in the proper construction of helicopter drops. The euro-area version of it would be cash transfers from the ECB to households, which could take the form of perpetual zero coupon loans, intermediated by banks (TLTRO). This is not fiscal policy as defined by EU law. It involves the monetary base and would be implemented independently of national treasuries and budgetary policies, and would therefore count as monetary policy. This would protect the independence of the ECB and fall within the price stability mandate.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The economic effects of migration

What’s at stake: migration is currently a very hot topic in both the US and the EU. Immigration issues have come to the forefront due to the problem of rapidly ageing populations, the refugee crisis, and growing anti-immigration political rhetoric. But what do we know about the economic effects of migration?

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 16, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Compensating the “losers” of globalisation

What’s at stake: According to some, 2016’s political turmoil shows that the so-called “losers” of globalisation are striking back. There is, however, little agreement on how government should respond to this challenge.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 9, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

2016: The end

What’s at stake: 2016 is coming to an end. It will be remembered as an annus mirabilis and horribilis, at the same time. 2016 brought us some previously unthinkable political shocks, and admittedly took away some of our finest musicians. It also couldn’t help taking away Willy Wonka and Princess Leia, making this a much sadder Galaxy. This raises an obvious question: what are we in for, in 2017?

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 31, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The American dream

What’s at stake: historian James Truslow Adams, in his 1931 book The Epic of America, stated that the American dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement”. Few ideas have ever been as powerful as the “American Dream”, and many recent political events hinge on the fear that this “dream” may be dead. Meanwhile, researchers have been trying to measure the reality behind the dream.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The political economy of macroprudential policy

What’s at stake: the emergence of renewed interest in macroprudential policy has characterised the aftermath of the great recession. There is not yet full agreement on what the tasks of macroprudential policy is or how it should be carried out, but there is a clear understanding that there is an important political economy dimension to it. We review some of the recent contribution on this.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 12, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl

Macroeconomics in the crossfire (again)

What’s at stake: After a first go at macroeconomics and its flaws a year ago, Paul Romer kicked off the debate again with a recent essay on how macroeconomics has gone backwards. The way that this debate, along with the debate of the role of economics in general, feeds into today's election woes, has also attracted attention in the blogosphere.

By: Pia Hüttl Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 5, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The Italian referendum

What’s at stake: on 4 December, Italy will hold a referendum on a proposed constitutional reform approved by Parliament in April. The reform, which was designed in tandem with a new electoral law, aims to overcome Italy’s “perfect bicameralism” by changing the structure and role of the Italian Senate. It also changes the distribution of competences between the state and regions. After the shocks of Brexit and the US election, polls are now drifting towards a defeat of the government’s position in Italy.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: November 28, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Trumpocalypse now: first reactions

What’s at stake: this question should probably be re-formulated as “what’s NOT at stake?” On Tuesday 8 November, the US elected Donald Trump as its next President. Several aspects of Trump’s political and economic agenda appear extreme (we have previously focused on his stance on trade). After the initial shock, we review economists’ opinions on what has happened and what may happen. We will be coming back to this topic regularly.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 21, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Brexit and the law

What’s at stake: last week, the UK High Court ruled that the triggering of Article 50 - and therefore the Brexit process - should involve the UK Parliament. The Government will appeal the decision but this has created a new wave of uncertainty about the timing of Brexit, and on what this involvement can mean in practice. We review the different opinions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: November 14, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Monetary policy at the time of elections

What’s at stake: At this week’s meeting, the Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged. While this was largely expected, the economic blogosphere has been discussing whether and to what extent this is linked to the election, and what can be expected for the future.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 7, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Should we rethink fiscal policy?

What’s at stake: there has been quite some discussion recently on whether we should rethink the framework of fiscal policy in order to make it more appropriate and effective in a world where demand seems to be chronically anemic, inflation is low and the interest rates are likely to stay close to zero (if not negative) for a long time. According to some of the authors, in the Eurozone these concerns are particularly pressing.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 24, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Brexit, the pound and the UK current account

What’s at stake: UK PM Theresa May announced the intention to trigger article 50 by March 2017, the Pound Sterling crashed, and a dispute among Tesco and Unilever has resulted in Marmite shortage. Brexit means Brexit, and it continues to be highly discussed. It would be impossible to summarise all the economic blogosphere on Brexit. Our aim is to periodically update our readers on selected important aspects of what promises to be a long-lived topic of discussion. This time we are looking at economists’ view on the Pound crash and the UK current account.

By: Silvia Merler Date: October 17, 2016
Load more posts