Abstract
ABSTRACT 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
