货币政策能够兼顾稳增长与防风险吗？——基于动态随机一般均衡模型的分析

Journal of Financial Research

2021, Vol. 490

Issue (4): 19-37 DOI:

Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search

Can Monetary Policy Reconcile Sustaining Steady Growth with Preventing Risks in China？ An Analysis Based on Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Modeling

DONG Bingbing, XU Huilun, TAN Xiaofen

School of Finance, Central University of Finance and Economics

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download:

PDF (2674KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Macro leverage growth in China has been brought under control in recent years and has therefore stabilized. At the first meeting of the Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs in April 2018, it was proposed that China should stabilize its macro leverage and quickly reduce the leverage ratio of local government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). However, stronger financial regulation and U.S.-China trade tensions imposed adverse shocks on the economy's driving force and on public confidence in the economy. The economy experienced increasingly downward pressure. In the face of the COVID-19 shock, the People's Bank of China strengthened counter-cyclical adjustments to monetary policy in 2020. These stronger counter-cyclical adjustments led to a temporary rise in the macro leverage ratio. Some researchers argue that stabilizing economic growth conflicts with stabilizing the macro leverage ratio in terms of counter-cyclical monetary policy adjustments. They therefore argue that monetary policy should now aim to enhance rather than stabilize economic growth.
However, monetary policy adjustment may not lead to such a conflict in terms of the economic meaning of the macro leverage ratio and structural deleveraging. In terms of improving credit allocation, when corporations with lower returns deleverage and those with higher returns leverage, resources can be redistributed to better performing corporates. Output productivity will therefore be promoted. This resource redistribution also helps to stabilize the macro leverage ratio and maintain economic growth.
We have three key questions. First, can monetary policy reconcile the stabilization of the macro leverage ratio with the maintenance of economic growth？ Second, how can the structural monetary policy instrument cooperate with existing monetary policy instruments to channel funds precisely？ Finally, how can monetary policy facilitate these two goals under the two-pillar framework of monetary policy and macro-prudential policy？ We develop a two-sector New Keynesian dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model. The model includes an SOE sector and a privately owned enterprise (POE) sector, further incorporating collateral constraints for these two sectors' borrowing. We use Bayesian methods with economic data from China to estimate the model. We address the above questions by providing impulse responses, variance decompositions, and historical decompositions.
Our findings are as follows. First, maintaining economic growth and stabilizing the macro leverage ratio are not contradictory; rather, they can promote each other. If the central bank lowers interest rates and strengthens SOEs' collateral constraints, credit resources will be directed from SOEs to POEs. This redirection can promote credit allocation efficiency. This will help to maintain stable growth and stabilize the macro leverage ratio. These monetary policy adjustments can therefore enhance the effects of financing, serving the real economy and effectively preventing systemic financial risks. Second, the above effects are related to the borrowing costs of SOEs and POEs. The effects can be reinforced by bringing the SOE loan rate closer to the market rate and implementing structural monetary policy that aims to reduce POE loan costs. Third, collateral constraints on SOEs were the main factor in macro leverage from the second quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2018. The adjustment of interest rates has had a greater impact on macro leverage since 2017. Fourth, under the macro prudential policy framework, if the central bank targets the macro leverage ratio according to the Taylor rule, which varies over time according to policy background, then the rule will contribute to the balance between maintaining stable growth, making structural adjustments, and guarding against risks. If the central bank loosens interest rates and strengthens SOEs' borrowing constraints, the interest rate coefficient on the macro leverage ratio should be positive. Based on this Taylor rule setting, a decrease in the macro leverage ratio will make the central bank further reduce interest rates. This decrease will then reinforce the effect of lowering interest rates and strengthen the collateral constraints on SOEs.
We make three contributions in this paper. First, we add corporate heterogeneity to the DSGE model according to China's economic features. The model can therefore illustrate credit allocation and the monetary policy mechanism in the corporate sector. Second, we simulate the effect of monetary policy in different settings of corporate borrowing costs to show how the central bank can use structural monetary policy to promote credit allocation and strengthen the effects of financing serving the real economy. This paper provides theoretical insights into the impact of structural monetary policy. Third, we combine the theoretical model with macro leverage ratio data and identify the key factor that drives macro leverage ratio in China. Using counterfactual experiments, we also show how to facilitate the maintenance of economic growth and the stabilization of the macro leverage ratio under the macro-prudential framework.

Key words： Monetary Policy Sustaining Steady Growth Stabilizing Leverage Ratio Preventing Risks

Received: 21 November 2019 Published: 02 May 2021

JEL分类号:	E52
	E61
	E51

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	DONG Bingbing
	XU Huilun
	TAN Xiaofen

Cite this article:

DONG Bingbing,XU Huilun,TAN Xiaofen. Can Monetary Policy Reconcile Sustaining Steady Growth with Preventing Risks in China？ An Analysis Based on Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Modeling[J]. Journal of Financial Research, 2021, 490(4): 19-37.

URL:

http://www.jryj.org.cn/EN/ OR http://www.jryj.org.cn/EN/Y2021/V490/I4/19

[1]	陈创练和戴明晓,2018,《货币政策、杠杆周期与房地产市场价格波动》,《经济研究》第9期,第52～67页。
[2]	陈小亮和马啸,2016,《“债务—通缩”风险与货币政策财政政策协调》,《经济研究》第8期,第28～42页。
[3]	董兵兵和徐慧伦,2018,《抵押约束、信贷配置与杠杆率》,第十八届中国青年学者论坛会议论文。
[4]	胡志鹏,2014,《“稳增长”与“控杠杆”双重目标下的货币当局最优政策设定》,《经济研究》第12期,第60～71+184页。
[5]	李青原和王红建,2013,《货币政策、资产可抵押性、现金流与公司投资——来自中国制造业上市公司的经验证据》,《金融研究》第6期,第31～45页。
[6]	连平和陈冀,2019,《货币政策面临的挑战与走势》,《中国金融》第3期,第18～20页。
[7]	林滨、王弟海和陈诗一,2018,《企业效率异质性、金融摩擦的资源再分配机制与经济波动》,《金融研究》第8期,第17～32页。
[8]	刘晓光和张杰平,2016,《中国杠杆率悖论——兼论货币政策“稳增长”和“降杠杆”真的两难吗》,《财贸经济》第8期,第5～19页。
[9]	罗时空和龚六堂,2013,《金融抑制、金融摩擦与企业债务融资的经济周期性》,《经济研究》增1期,第118～131页。
[10]	吕炜、高帅雄和周潮,2016,《投资建设性支出还是保障性支出——去杠杆背景下的财政政策实施研究》,《中国工业经济》第8期,第5～22页。
[11]	马勇,2013,《植入金融因素的DSGE模型与宏观审慎货币政策规则》,《世界经济》第7期,第68～92页。
[12]	汤铎铎,2019,《金融去杠杆、竞争中性与政策转型——2019年中国宏观经济展望》,《经济学动态》第3期,第32～43页。
[13]	汪勇、马新彬和周俊仰,2018,《货币政策与异质性企业杠杆率——基于纵向产业结构的视角》,《金融研究》第5期,第47～64页。
[14]	王曦、王茜和陈中飞,2016,《货币政策预期与通货膨胀管理——基于消息冲击的DSGE分析》,《经济研究》第2期,第16～29页。
[15]	王宇伟、盛天翔和周耿,2018,《宏观政策、金融资源配置与企业部门高杠杆率》,《金融研究》第1期,第36～52页。
[16]	王云清、朱启贵和谈正达,2013,《中国房地产市场波动研究——基于贝叶斯估计的两部门DSGE模型》,《金融研究》第3期,第101～113页。
[17]	伍戈,2018,《持续紧货币在现实中并不具有可行性》,http://www.sohu.com/a/240392303_257448。
[18]	Bernanke, Ben, Mark Gertler, and Simon Gilchrist. 1999. “The Financial Accelerator in a Quantitative Business Cycle Framework” in Handbook of Macroeconomics, Eds. by Taylor, John B., and Michael Woodford, 1:1341～1393.
[19]	Bleck, Alexander, and Xuewen Liu. 2018. “Credit Expansion and Credit Misallocation” Journal of Monetary Economics, 94:27～40.
[20]	Calvo, Guillermo A.. 1983. “Staggered Prices in a Utility-Maximizing Framework” Journal of Monetary Economics, 12(3):383～398.
[21]	Chang, Chun, Zheng Liu, Mark M. Spiegel, and Jingyi Zhang. 2019. “Reserve Requirements and Optimal Chinese Stabilization Policy” Journal of Monetary Economics, 103:33～51.
[22]	Chen, Kaiji, and Tao Zha. 2018. “Macroeconomic Effects of China's Financial Policies” NBER Working Paper, No. 25222.
[23]	Chen, Kaiji, Jue Ren, and Tao Zha. 2018. “The Nexus of Monetary Policy and Shadow Banking in China” American Economic Review, 108(12):3891～3936.
[24]	Chen, Kaiji, Patrick Higgins, Daniel F. Waggoner, and Tao Zha. 2016. “Impacts of Monetary Stimulus on Credit Allocation and the Macroeconomy: Evidence from China” NBER Working Paper, No. 22650.
[25]	Iacoviello, Matteo. 2005. “House Prices, Borrowing Constraints, and Monetary Policy in the Business Cycle” American Economic Review, 95(3):739～764.
[26]	Iacoviello, Matteo. 2015. “Financial Business Cycles” Review of Economic Dynamics, 18(1):140～163.
[27]	Iskrev, Nikolay. 2010. “Local Identification in DSGE Models” Journal of Monetary Economics, 57(2):189～202.
[28]	Jermann, Urban, and Vincenzo Quadrini. 2012. “Macroeconomic Effects of Financial Shocks” American Economic Review, 102(1):238～271.
[29]	Kaihatsu, Sohei, and Takushi Kurozumi. 2014. “Sources of Business Fluctuations: Financial or Technology Shocks？” Review of Economic Dynamics, 17(2):224～242.
[30]	Kiyotaki, Nobuhiro, and John Moore. 1997. “Credit Cycles” Journal of Political Economy,105(2):211～248.
[31]	Liu, Zheng, Pengfei Wang, and Zhiwei Xu. 2021. “Interest-Rate Liberalization and Capital Misallocations” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics,13(2):373～419.
[32]	Mishkin, Frederic S.. 2017. “Rethinking Monetary Policy after the Crisis” Journal of International Money and Finance, 73:252～274.
[33]	Peng, Daoju, Kang Shi, and Juanyi Xu. 2016. “SOE and Chinese Real Business Cycle” HKIMR Working Paper No. 02/2016.
[34]	Smets, Frank, and Rafael Wouters. 2007. “Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Approach” American Economic Review, 97(3):586～606.