There is a view that central banks do not have the tools to respond effectively to the next economic slowdown, and that radical new measures may be required. This has reignited talk about “helicopter money,” through which a central bank, at the behest of its government, makes a one‑off, permanent injection of cash into the economy. But how does helicopter money differ from the measures already taken under quantitative easing (QE), and what would helicopter money imply for central bank independence?
Helicopter money and QE have something in common in that they both rely on central bank “money printing.” But this is where the similarities end. Under QE, the central bank purchases assets, government‑issued or otherwise, to push down interest rates. In doing so, it expands both its assets and its liabilities. The decision to pursue a QE strategy is made by the central bank independent of the government’s fiscal policies.
Helicopter money is different in that it is simultaneously a fiscal and a monetary operation. Under helicopter money, the central bank prints money and donates the newly created funds, free of charge, to the population. That is, it expands its liabilities, but it does not acquire any assets. Consequently, under helicopter money the central bank’s equity position is eroded and it loses operational independence as the money printing exercise is driven by politicians.
In most developed economies, it is generally accepted that central banks should remain independent to prevent monetary policy from falling victim to the electoral cycle—in other words, to stop politicians from trying to win elections by making short‑term decisions that have negative consequences later.
The times, however, are changing. The rapid growth of populist movements in many countries suggest that large numbers of people are not happy with the way their economies are run, and, in particular, do not see how central bank independence has any tangible benefit for them. In response, some populist politicians have argued that central bank balance sheets should be put to work to provide tangible goods for the people in the form of fiscal handouts. Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that governments should use fiscal policy to generate full employment, is one variation on this line of thought. What seemed completely unthinkable not too long ago is beginning to gain traction.
It remains some way from becoming reality. Nobody has yet demonstrated that delegating monetary policy to elected politicians will bring about better economic outcomes than the current method of allowing central banks to manage it. As such, there is currently very little support for helicopter money among central bankers and academics. However, we need to acknowledge that popular sentiment is changing and that changes in popular sentiment may eventually lead to changes in policy. The rise of populism and the gradual erosion of central bank independence—if it continues—mean that the environment we live in is probably more conducive to helicopter money than it was just a few years ago.
This material is being furnished for general informational purposes only. The material does not constitute or undertake to give advice of any nature, including fiduciary investment advice, and prospective investors are recommended to seek independent legal, financial and tax advice before making any investment decision. T. Rowe Price group of companies including T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and/or its affiliates receive revenue from T. Rowe Price investment products and services. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. The value of an investment and any income from it can go down as well as up. Investors may get back less than the amount invested.
The material does not constitute a distribution, an offer, an invitation, a personal or general recommendation or solicitation to sell or buy any securities in any jurisdiction or to conduct any particular investment activity. The material has not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in any jurisdiction.
Information and opinions presented have been obtained or derived from sources believed to be reliable and current; however, we cannot guarantee the sources’ accuracy or completeness. There is no guarantee that any forecasts made will come to pass. The views contained herein are as of the date written and are subject to change without notice; these views may differ from those of other T. Rowe Price group companies and/or associates. Under no circumstances should the material, in whole or in part, be copied or redistributed without consent from T. Rowe Price.
The material is not intended for use by persons in jurisdictions which prohibit or restrict the distribution of the material and in certain countries the material is provided upon specific request. It is not intended for distribution to retail investors in any jurisdiction.
Australia—Issued in Australia by T. Rowe Price Australia Limited (ABN: 13 620 668 895 and AFSL: 503741), Level 50, Governor Phillip Tower, 1 Farrer Place, Suite 50B, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. For Wholesale Clients only.
New Zealand—Issued in New Zealand by T. Rowe Price Australia Limited (ABN: 13 620 668 895 and AFSL: 503741), Level 50, Governor Phillip Tower, 1 Farrer Place, Suite 50B, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. No Interests are offered to the public. Accordingly, the Interests may not, directly or indirectly, be offered, sold or delivered in New Zealand, nor may any offering document or advertisement in relation to any offer of the Interests be distributed in New Zealand, other than in circumstances where there is no contravention of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.
© 2019 T. Rowe Price. All rights reserved. T. ROWE PRICE, INVEST WITH CONFIDENCE, and the Bighorn Sheep design are, collectively and/or apart, trademarks of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.