Did Quantitative Easing Increase Income Inequality?
Juan Montecino (montecino.ja@gmail.com) and
Gerald Epstein (gepstein@econs.umass.edu)
Additional contact information
Gerald Epstein: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
No 28, Working Papers Series from Institute for New Economic Thinking
Abstract:
The impact of the post-meltdown Federal Reserve policy of ultra-low interest rates and Quantitative Easing (QE) on income and wealth inequality has become an important policy and political issue. Critics have argued that by raising asset prices, near-zero interest rates and QE have significantly contributed to increases in inequality, while practitioners of central banking, counter that the distributional impact have probably been either neutral or even egalitarian in nature due to its employment impacts. Yet there has been little academic research that addresses empirically this important question. We use data from the Federal Reserves Tri-Annual Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and look at the evolution of income by quintile between the Pre- QE period and the QE period analyzing three key impact channels of QE policy on income distribution: 1) the employment channel 2) the asset appreciation and return channel, and 3) the mortgage refinancing channel. Using recentered influence function (RIF) regressions pioneered by Firpo et. al (2007) in conjunction with the well-known Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique, we find that while employment changes and mortgage refinancing were equalizing, these impacts were nonetheless swamped by the large dis-equalizing effects of equity price appreciations. Reductions in returns to short term assets added further to dis-equalizing processes between the periods. Bond price appreciations, surprisingly, had little distributional impact. We cannot know precisely how much of these changes are due to QE as opposed to other influences, but to assess potential causal effects we utilize a counter-factual exercise to assess the quantitative range of impacts of QE on the main channels. We conclude that, most likely, QE was modestly dis-equalizing, despite having some positive impacts on employment and mortgage refinancing. The modestly dis-equalizing impacts were due to both policy choices and deep seated structural problems, such as the long-term deterioration in labor market opportunities for many workers due to globalization and legal and political reductions in labor bargaining power that have contributed to long term wage stagnation. Finally, there is no support in our analysis, for the proposition that raising interest rates would be an efficient mechanism for improving income distribution, because of the likely costs in terms of employment and debt refinancing opportunities.
Keywords: Quantitative Easing; Monetary Policy; Federal Reserve; Inequality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: E02 E58 E61 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 34 pages
Date: 2015-10
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (43)
Published
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP28-Epstein-Montecino.pdf (application/pdf)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692637 First version, 2015 (text/html)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:thk:wpaper:28
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2692637
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers Series from Institute for New Economic Thinking Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Pia Malaney (pmalaney@ineteconomics.org).