When central banks try to create optimism

In Japan, Europe and the US, central banks have tried to alter consumer pessimism – that might lead to deflation – by flooding financial markets with money. Can a behavior of hope be 'nudged' in this way?

Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda points to a placard Oct. 21 showing how the central bank decided on massive stimulus spending.

Can you buy hope?

If you have tracked what central banks in the world’s advanced economies have done since the 2009 financial crisis, you might have doubts.

In the United States, Japan, and Europe, top officials in charge of money supply have poured trillions in new money – dollars, yen, and, to some degree, euros – into their economies. The purpose? To nudge consumers to buy more and investors to back new business.

These central banks, in other words, have acted with optimism that newly created money will alter the pessimism of the public. They believe people must be lured to act against their caution and become confident of the future.

The officials themselves, however, have worried that consumer attitudes could create deflation. This is a self-perpetuating downward spiral of prices if consumers delay purchases in anticipation of even lower prices. It is the opposite of inflation, and more difficult to stop.

The United States may have dodged the deflation bullet in part because the Federal Reserve opened a spigot of money to banks, a program known as quantitative easing. The “QE” loosened credit for private investment, especially in the housing market. The spigot officially closed last month as the growth of the US economy topped three percent.

In contrast, Japan still faces a long battle against the threat of deflation. Last Friday, its central bank took a radical step to “reflate” the world’s third largest economy. Haruhiko Kuroda, the Bank of Japan governor, announced he will push about $725 billion into the economy. It was the second big stimulus in less than two years. 

Mr. Kuroda was clear about its purpose. He wants to eradicate a “deflationary mindset” among the Japanese. He blames undue pessimism while also seeking to induce a “wealth effect,” or a feeling of confidence.

The problem has been, however, that the Japanese have caught on to such attempted manipulation of behavior. They may see themselves as the rational actors more than the central bank.

In Europe, deflation has only begun to hit a few countries. The European Central Bank has largely avoided the kind of giant purchases of debt as seen in the QEs of the US and Japan. The bank’s president, Mario Draghi, says he will “do whatever it takes” to prevent a financial collapse. But he is also quite open about not manipulating the public.

When asked in September if he should stop warning Europeans about the risk of inflation getting too low, he said: “Would the truth be a risk? In other words, do we really think that telling people things other than the truth would affect their behavior? And the answer is no. We think that we ought to state things as they are. We don’t see deflation.”

With people in the West more savvy and informed about economics, it is difficult these days for officials to attempt to manipulate behavior. As mathematical models have lost favor among many in the field, more governments have turned to behavioral economists to find ways to influence consumers, especially in Britain and the US. One popular approach, known as “nudge theory,” assumes government is rational in directing options at consumers to alter “irrational” behavior. New workers, for example, might be automatically enrolled to pay into a retirement plan unless they choose to opt out.

This benign paternalism is based on the notion that most people are not capable of reasoned reflection and, short of using bans or taxes, government must guide consumers by clever “choice architecture,” or subtle manipulation.

As the struggle against deflation has shown, the better choice for government is to be open and honest, treating people as capable not only of reason but the ability to reason together.

An economy should be run with the best view of human behavior. As Adam Smith wrote in his 1759 “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

 Can hope be bought? It is better to find it than to fabricate it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to When central banks try to create optimism
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today