Monetary Policy

Quantitative easing: we need another Lawson


Quantitative easing has become such a buzzword that it has now become known by its initials – QE. On a number of occasions, I have discussed its merits in the current circumstances and then been accused of being an “inflationist”, so I thought it might be worth clarifying a few points.

Last Thursday I was on Reuters discussing the conclusions of the MPC meeting as the information was being announced to the markets. The interviewer kept asking questions such as: “It looks like it will be £75bn – is that the right number?”. I tried to explain, more than once, that I was not qualified to comment on whether £100bn or £80bn was the right number; what is important is the framework of thinking of the Bank. In my view, given that interest rates are no longer a useful policy tool, the Bank should be trying to get close to its inflation target by monitoring the amount of broad money, in the context of the special factors which we know make the money numbers difficult to intepret (inter-bank activity, the velocity of circulation etc). QE should simply be about trying to ensure that we do not get a contraction, or a too-rapid expansion, of the money supply. This means that mopping up the money at the appropriate time is just as important as making sure that appropriate measures of money supply do not drop.

I tried to stress in the Reuters interview that my main concern was that I feared that there was no rigorous framework of thinking at the Bank or the Treasury. Officials seem to think that this is a serious recession, therefore we must throw everything at it – and that must include printing money. That is the way to poor execution and a serious bout of inflation. As I went on to say, we need a Lawson or an Issing to draw up a framework that communicates just why the central bank is doing this, how it will know that it has done enough and when it should start mopping things up. QE is not new (at least not to those of us who recognise that history did not begin in 1997). The central bank can set interest rates and let money supply look after itself. Alternatively, it can set a framework for managing monetary aggregates and let interest rates set themselves. But, to maintain confidence in the inflation target, the Bank should explain why it is doing what it is doing. If it does not, then people will begin to wonder…

Academic and Research Director, IEA

Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.


4 thoughts on “Quantitative easing: we need another Lawson”

  1. Posted 10/03/2009 at 10:49 | Permalink

    I should clarify that the Lawson we need is the one who wrote the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Most readers of this blog (myself included) will be less keen on the expansionary monetary policy and DM shadowing of the late 1980s.

  2. Posted 10/03/2009 at 10:49 | Permalink

    I should clarify that the Lawson we need is the one who wrote the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Most readers of this blog (myself included) will be less keen on the expansionary monetary policy and DM shadowing of the late 1980s.

  3. Posted 10/03/2009 at 12:23 | Permalink

    That’s a good footnote. Well done on the telly yesterday.

  4. Posted 10/03/2009 at 12:23 | Permalink

    That’s a good footnote. Well done on the telly yesterday.

Comments are closed.


Newsletter Signup