Negative Interest Rate Policy to Fight Secular Stagnation: Unfeasible, Ineffective, Irrelevant, or Inadequate?
Stefano Di Bucchianico ()
Review of Political Economy, 2021, vol. 33, issue 4, 687-710
This paper discusses three explanations for Secular Stagnation: Summers’s demand-side Secular Stagnation Theory, Palley’s Investment Saturation Hypothesis, and Gordon’s supply-side Secular Stagnation Theory. All three involve a judgement on the efficacy of a negative interest rate policy (NIRP) in tackling stagnation: according to the first it is unfeasible, according to the second it is ineffective (and even dangerous), and according to the third it is irrelevant. First, we argue that these theories face the fundamental difficulty constituted by the use of a (negative) natural (or equilibrium) rate of interest. We propose an original critique of the negative equilibrium rate of interest determined by the marginal efficiency of capital. Second, we claim that the negative interest rate policy is an inadequate tool to fight stagnation. While monitoring and fostering financial stability should be a fundamental role of monetary authorities, monetary policy is unable to stimulate growth, whereas fiscal policy is better suited to the task.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:33:y:2021:i:4:p:687-710
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Review of Political Economy is currently edited by Steve Pressman and Louis-Philippe Rochon
More articles in Review of Political Economy from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().