Inside versus outside money
At issue is the nature of “inside” versus “outside” money. Peccatiello argues that “inside money never reaches the real economy. Outside money does” and to the extent that he characterises QE as inside money, it cannot therefore impact on inflation. I suspect there is some confusion about definitions here and in order to get a better handle on this, we need to understand the concepts under discussion. The notion of inside versus outside money was introduced into economics by the seminal work of John Gurley and Edward Shaw, Money in a Theory of Finance, published in 1960. It was a very innovative work for its time and looked at the interaction between the real economy and monetary growth. As they put it, “real or “goods” aspects of development have been the center of attention in economic literature to the comparative neglect of financial aspects.”
Gurley and Shaw (G&S) define inside money as originating from within the private sector. Since one private agent’s liability is simultaneously another agent’s asset, inside money is in zero net supply within the private sector. Thus, funds held in bank accounts would be classed as inside money because they are an asset of private firms or households but a liability of private sector banks. Conversely, outside money derives from outside the private sector and is either fiat (unbacked) or backed by some asset that is not in zero net supply within the private sector. An increase in the stock of currency by the central bank would be classified as outside money, because although it is an asset of the private sector it is a liability of the public central bank.
The vexed question of money neutrality
Since outside and inside money represent different types of liquidity, they have differing effects on the wider economy. One implication of this is that the money stock is not homogenous – money is not just money as it is comprised of these two differing types. This calls into question the notion that money is neutral (i.e. it does not impact on real quantities in the long run and serves only to impact on prices). In light of the debate regarding the impact of liquidity creation by central banks and the recent surge in inflation, this may help us to shed some light on the monetary transmission process and the role of QE within it.
Without boring the reader with the details of the process, G&S demonstrate that in their general equilibrium framework inside money is neutral but outside money is not (the interested reader is referred here). How do we categorise QE? In the sense that the central bank creates reserves to buy assets from the private sector (in this case, the non-bank private sector) but uses them to buy government bonds, they are merely swapping one type of outside money for another (cash for bonds). Consequently, the inside-outside composition of private sector assets remains unchanged. I thus agree with Peccatiello that QE can be categorised as inside money. If we accept the proposition of money neutrality, this implies that QE is unlikely to have any long-term impact on real activity. But this does not mean that it has no impact on prices. Indeed, classical monetary theory argues that if it does anything, QE will impact on price inflation.
Moreover, monetary neutrality relies on the absence of frictions but, as the work of Karl Brunner and Allan Meltzer has demonstrated, such frictions do exist and thereby allow monetary policy to have an impact on the real economy – perhaps only for a limited period of time. QE may not have had the impact on the economy that central banks hoped but there is in theory scope for it to boost activity. Analysis conducted by the BoE in 2011 suggested that the initial round of asset purchases boosted UK GDP by 1.5% to 2% compared to what would have happened in its absence.
Should central banks continue with asset purchases?
If we therefore accept that asset purchases do impact on inflation and prices, does it make sense for central banks to continue the programme, particularly in view of the surge in US inflation to 5.4% last month – the fastest rate since 2008? The short answer would appear to be no. Whilst it is true that the prices of used cars contributed a third of the monthly rise in the CPI in June, which is likely to be a temporary phenomenon, there is evidence that prices are rising rapidly across the board. Accordingly the Fed is widely expected to taper its asset purchases before too long with suggestions that the Fed will broach the subject at next month’s Jackson Hole symposium. Investors will recall the 2013 experience when the prospect of a slowdown in Fed asset purchases prompted the infamous taper tantrum which resulted in a spike in bond yields. However, with financial asset prices at red hot levels, taking some air out of the market may actually not be such a bad thing.
Last word
Whilst there is general agreement that QE has been the primary driver of asset prices in recent years, there remains much debate about its impact on the wider economy. Whilst I have never been persuaded of some of the claims made for it by policymakers, I have never accepted that it has zero impact. Even if the effects are small, such has been the magnitude of asset purchases that even small spillovers will show up in GDP and inflation data. This 2016 paper by Martin Weale and Tomasz Wieladek offers evidence that in contrast to the claim made by Peccatiello, “US (UK) QE had a similar (much larger) effect on inflation and (than) GDP.” If asset purchases have helped the economy to avoid a slow post-pandemic recovery, they have done their job. But having done their job, it may now be time to think about scaling back.
No comments:
Post a Comment