Affiliation:
1. Flossbach von Storch Research Institute
2. Leipzig University
Abstract
This article compares the Keynesian, neoclassical and Austrian expla-nations for low interest rates and sluggish growth. From a Keynesian and neoclassical perspective, low interest rates are attributed to aging societies, which save more for the future (global savings glut). Low growth is linked to slowing population growth and a declining marginal efficiency of investment as well as to declining fixed capital investment due to digitalization (secular stagnation). In contrast, from the perspective of Austrian business cycle theory, interest rates were decreased step by step by central banks to stimulate growth. This paralyzed investment and lowered growth in the long term. This study shows that the ability of banks to extend credit ex nihilo and the requirement of time to produce capital goods invalidates the permanent IS identity assumed in the Keynesian theory. Furthermore, it is found that there is no empirical evidence for the hypotheses of a global savings glut and secular stagnation. Instead, low growth can be explained by the emergence of quasi “soft budget constraints” as a result of low interest rates, which reduce the incentive for banks and enterprises to strive for efficiency.
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference67 articles.
1. Acharya, Viral, Tim Eisert, Christian Eufinger, and Christian Hirsch. 2019. “Whatever It Takes: The Real Effects of Unconventional Monetary Policy.” Review of Financial Studies 32, no. 9: 3366–3411.
2. Adalet McGowan, Müge, Dan Andrews, and Valentine Millot. 2017. “The Walking Dead? Zombie Firms and Productivity Performance in OECD Countries.” OECD Economics Department Working Paper 1372, Paris, France, January 25.
3. Agarwal, Ruchir, and Miles Kimball. 2019. “Enabling Deep Negative Rates to Fight Recession: A Guide.” IMF Working Paper 19/84, Washington, D.C., April 29.
4. Bank of Japan. 2013. “The ‘Price Stability Target’ under the Framework for the Conduct of Monetary Policy.” News release, Jan. 22, 2013. https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130122b.pdf.
5. Blinder, Alan, and Ricardo Reis. 2005. “Understanding the Greenspan Standard.” Working paper no. 88, Center for Economic Policy Studies, Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献