新华丝路网是一带一路综合信息服务平台,丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路的权威网站

一带一路国家级信息服务平台

新华丝路首页 > 智库报告 > 免费报告

货币政策的溢出效应有多严重?

2016-08-23 09:16 彼得森国际经济研究所

摘要:不应夸大关于货币政策潜在溢出效应的忧虑。今后,若新兴经济体的央行视其他央行的行动为一种威胁,开放的沟通渠道必不可少。

164290904

原文标题:How Serious Are Spillovers of Monetary Policy?

中文摘要:彼得森国际经济研究所专家Jan Zilinsky在《货币政策的溢出效应有多严重?》一文中表示,不应夸大关于货币政策潜在溢出效应的忧虑。今后,若新兴经济体的央行视其他央行的行动为一种威胁,开放的沟通渠道必不可少。的确,有统计数据证实,一些国家易受美国货币政策变动的影响。受影响程度取决于多种因素,如当地金融发展水平和在全球价值链中的参与度。其中一些国家在2013年之前受益于美国的货币政策,但当美联储暗示计划削减刺激措施时,它们遭受的痛苦也多一些。另外,若认为美联储2009-2010年在美国尝试“灭火”或对当时经济过热的巴西、甚至中国起到一定作用,也是有道理的。不过,解决这一难题的办法不是让美联储继续猜会在国外造成什么影响。所有国家最好努力确保本国经济具有韧性。为此,它们可以推广既能提高效率又能让大多数公民提高生活水平的政策。(编译:刘小云)

原文:

Given the deep scars caused by the 2008 financial crisis, most economists agree that aggressive response by major central banks was appropriate. But now some observers are asking whether the cross-border spillovers of monetary authorities deserve scrutiny. The question arises: If an action of a central bank has direct effects on other economies, should it try to coordinate its policies? How much information should it share with other monetary authorities? And, when conduct is deemed to have adverse effects on neighboring or distant countries, should a forum for “official complaints” exist?

First, it is important to note that central banks have mostly been attempting to provide economic stimulus in recent years. They usually succeeded in boosting demand. When the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank decreased interest rates, they ensured that the economic recession was shorter, thereby allowing American and European consumers to purchase goods made in China or any other country.

Second, any analysis of post-crisis monetary policy needs to emphasize that central banks have not engaged in “currency wars.” They generally resisted the temptation to create unfair advantages for domestic exporters by deliberately and artificially keeping currency values low for sustained periods of time. This is apparent by the fact that instances of excessive inflation have been rare in the last eight years. Several central banks in advanced economies have, in fact, kept inflation at very low levels. A reasonable argument could be made that, especially in Europe, ambitious monetary policy should have come sooner.

Third, even though all central banks concentrate their attention on their domestic economies, they already have good “selfish reasons” not to behave irresponsibly. They realize that instability in other countries would normally affect their own objectives in a counterproductive manner.

Finally, many economic discussions are dominated by the notion that monetary policy―the setting of interest rates and also movements in the value of a country’s currency―have potentially large effects on other countries. The argument is that when central banks carry out policy changes, such as adjustments in interest rates, they should be mindful of their effects on trading partners, foreign investors, and other international counterparts. But it is sometimes forgotten that monetary policy is not the only type of policy that can produce spillover effects.

Consider what happens when fiscal policy becomes less strict. When citizens receive more public services or enjoy greater welfare protection, it means that the immediate need for saving decreases. Even if governments do not intend to encourage private spending, fiscal policy (the amount spent by central and local governments) will often result in changes in consumer behavior. If, for example, French citizens do not feel compelled to save, it means that they are more likely to purchase cars, many of which are produced in Germany. That is, a neighbor of France can be a beneficiary of a new fiscal arrangement―note that these decisions have nothing to do with the activities of central banks.

One could argue that monetary authorities receive too much attention, which at times morphs into blame. Admittedly, it is true that their decisions can be disruptive. When not anticipated, their actions can shock markets and have unintended consequences. But the focus on the monetary domain could distract us from developments in the fiscal sphere. When a country becomes too indebted, for instance, the resulting shock from bankruptcy can be extremely serious.

These four considerations suggest that concerns about possible spillovers of monetary policy should not be overplayed.

And yet, the global economy is changing in fundamental ways, due to population aging, low productivity growth, and economic polarization. In this environment, vigilance will be essential. Central banks have avoided hurting other economies, but that does not imply that we can afford to be complacent.

Going forward, if central banks in emerging economies will view the actions of other central banks as a threat, open lines of communication will be indispensable. The architects of economic policies need to listen to their peers, as they may not fully realize how far the consequences of their own decisions reverberate beyond the borders of their own countries.

Indeed, there is statistical evidence that some countries are vulnerable to changes in US monetary policy. The intensity of the exposure depends on various factors, such as local financial development and participation in global value chains. Some of these countries benefited from US monetary policy until 2013, but they also incurred more pain when the Fed signaled its intention to provide less stimulus. It is possible, moreover, to argue that when the Fed tried to “put down the fire” in the United States in 2009-10, it may have played a role in the overheating of countries like Brazil and even China.

The solution to this conundrum is not, however, to ask the Fed to keep guessing what effects it may have abroad. It is better for all countries to work toward ensuring that their own economies are resilient. They can do so by promoting those policies that raise efficiency and, at the same time, allow the majority of citizens to raise their living standards.

责任编辑:刘小云

相关阅读 货币政策溢出

精彩视频

新华丝路数据库

推荐阅读
热点文章