Was the New Deal Contractionary?
Gauti Eggertsson
No 660, 2007 Meeting Papers from Society for Economic Dynamics
Abstract:
Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? This paper studies this question in a dynamic general equilibrium model with nominal frictions and shows that these policies are expansionary when certain “emergency” conditions apply. I argue that these emergency conditions— zero interest rates and deflation—were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary, according to the model. This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by Cole and Ohanian (2004), who argue that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model,changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.
Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://red-files-public.s3.amazonaws.com/meetpapers/2007/paper_660.pdf (application/pdf)
Related works:
Journal Article: Was the New Deal Contractionary? (2012) 
Working Paper: Was the New Deal contractionary? (2006) 
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:red:sed007:660
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in 2007 Meeting Papers from Society for Economic Dynamics Society for Economic Dynamics Marina Azzimonti Department of Economics Stonybrook University 10 Nicolls Road Stonybrook NY 11790 USA. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christian Zimmermann ().