The Economist explains

Why central banks are talking about throwing money from helicopters

"Helicopter money" is one proposed solution to the world's economic slump

By R.A. | LONDON

CENTRAL banks have gone to extraordinary lengths to get their slumping economies moving again: cutting interest rates to zero (and beyond) and buying vast amounts of government debt. Yet as the rich world continues to stumble along in a world of low inflation and weak growth, despite rock-bottom interest rates, a new policy proposal is entering the discussion: “helicopter money”, shorthand for printing money to fund government spending or to give people cash. In March Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, described helicopter money as a “very interesting concept”. Haruhiko Kuroda, the Governor of the Bank of Japan, ruled the option out for now when asked recently. Yet the longer stagnation continues, the greater the odds that government eventually gives the policy a shot. But how exactly would helicopter money work, and what would it do to an economy?

The evocative concept of helicopter money comes from Milton Friedman, the father of monetarism, who mused in 1969 that central bankers could never fail to boost the money supply since they could always drop newly printed bills from the sky onto the cash-starved economy below. The idea cropped up again in the early 2000s, as economists puzzled over how to spring the Japanese economy from its deflationary trap. Ben Bernanke, at the time a new governor at the Federal Reserve, made reference to Friedman’s conceit in speeches about dispelling deflation, earning himself the nickname “Helicopter Ben”. Advocates of helicopter money do not really intend to throw money out of aircraft. Broadly speaking, they argue for fiscal stimulus—in the form of government spending, tax cuts or direct payments to citizens—financed with newly printed money rather than through borrowing or taxation. Quantitative easing (QE) qualifies, so long as the central bank buying the government bonds promises to hold them to maturity, with interest payments and principal remitted back to the government like most central-bank profits. Bolder versions of the strategy make the central bank’s largesse more explicit. It could, for instance, hand newly printed money directly to citizens. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, has proposed “people’s QE” of this sort.

The potential advantages of helicopter money are clear. Unlike changes to interest rates, stimulus paid for by the central bank does not rely on increased borrowing to work. This reduces the risk that central banks help inflate new bubbles, and adds to their potency when crisis or uncertainty make the banking system unreliable. Fiscal stimulus financed by borrowing provides similar benefits, but these could be blunted if consumers think taxes must eventually go up to pay off the accumulated debts—a problem helicopter money flies around. It would provide an adrenaline shot to the economy, boosting spending, growth and expectations of future inflation. That, in turn, could eventually allow central banks to raise interest rates back up above zero, restoring to them the use of their favoured economy-steering tool.

Unfortunately, helicopter money is not quite a silver bullet. Some economists fear that it would erode central banks' independence and reduce their ability to keep control over inflation. Yet the bigger worry is that helicopter money will never get off the ground in the first place. The elected governments whose say-so would be needed for money-financed stimulus to work have already declined to use more conventional tools to get growth going: like borrowing at near-zero interest rates to finance badly needed infrastructure investment. Instead, governments around the rich world have opted to cut deficits, undermining central bank efforts to get economies moving. Helicopter money, though not without risks, is a promising policy tool. But the consensus to use it or other demand-boosting tools to get economies out of their slumps is sadly missing.

Dig deeper:
The world's central bankers consider handing out cash (April 2016)

More from The Economist explains

What are the obligations of Israel and Hamas to protect civilians?

International Humanitarian Law creates obligations—but contains numerous caveats

Why is so much of the internet’s infrastructure run by volunteers?

Malware smuggled into XZ Utils software highlights a bigger problem


The growing role of fighting robots on the ground in Ukraine

Drones already fill the skies. Now uncrewed vehicles are heading to the front lines