非常规货币政率在小开放经济中

Unconventional MonetaryPolicies in Small OpenEconomies Marcin Kolasa, Stefan Laséen, and Jesper Lindé WP/25/66 IMF Working Papersdescribe research in progressby the author(s) and are published to elicitcomments and to encourage debate.The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily represent theviews of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMFmanagement. 2025APR IMF Working Paper Monetary and Capital Markets Department Unconventional Monetary Policies in Small Open EconomiesPrepared by Marcin Kolasa, Stefan Laséen, and Jesper Lindé* Authorized for distribution by Jesper LindéApril 2025 IMF Working Papersdescribe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicitcomments and to encourage debate.The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management. ABSTRACT:This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the macroeconomic and fiscal impact ofunconventional monetary tools in small open economies. Using a DSGE model, we show that the exchange rateplays a critical role to amplify the favourable impact of unconventional monetary policy while it attenuates theeffectiveness of conventional fiscal policy to jointly boost output and inflation. We then use the model as alaboratory to do a case study of the Swedish Riksbank asset purchases and negative policy rates 2015-2019. Wefind that the Riksbank unconventional policy measures provided meaningful macroeconomic stimulus to economicactivity and inflation, with the dual benefit of reducing overall government debt by about 5 percent of GDP. Ifconventional fiscal policy had been used to provide a commensurate output boost, inflation would have risennotably less, and the fiscal cost would have amounted to a deterioration of the government debt position withnearly 8 percent of GDP. 1.Introduction Following the Global Financial Crisis and the Euro area debt crisis, central banks ventured into unprecedentedterritory, deploying unconventional monetary policy (UMP) tools – including large scale asset purchases(LSAP), negative policy rates, and forward guidance – to stimulate economic activity, bring inflation closer totarget, and reduce the risk of deflationary spirals. For instance, the Swedish Central Bank (Sveriges Riksbank),cut their policy rate into negative territory and began to undertake large scale assets purchases in early 2015.Of these unconventional policy measures, especially asset purchases have been considered controversial asmany observers claim they blur the line between monetary and fiscal policy. They also subsequently led tosubstantial central bank balance sheet losses during the Post-COVID inflation surge as shown in Figure 1. Thishas led to vibrant debate of the macroeconomic benefits and the fiscal costs of unconventional monetaryinterventions.1 The Riksbank’s experience with these policies offers a stark illustration of the challenges of usingunconventional monetary tools to meet inflation targets in a small open economy. By April 2024, theRiksbank’s balance sheet had absorbed substantial losses from its LSAP program, prompting a petition to the Swedish parliament for a capital injection of SEK 43.7 billion (approximately 0.7 percent of 2023 nominalGDP) to restore a positive level of capital of the central bank (see Figure 1).2Adding to this, the SwedishNational Audit Office (2023) (RiR) and the Swedish Treasury Long-Term Survey “SOU 2023:85” criticizedthe Riksbank unconventional monetary policies on two grounds. First, they argued that they had beenineffective to stimulate economic activity and inflation. Second, they noted that the policies had led to largecentral bank balance sheet losses, which puts upward pressure on the consolidated government debt position.All told, the Swedish RiR recommended against future use of LSAPs as an inflation-targeting tool. Against this backdrop, this paper aims to enhance the understanding of the macroeconomic and fiscalimplications of unconventional monetary policies. Building on the closed economy results in Adrian et al.(2024), it reevaluates these policies in a small open economy framework, with a particular focus on theexchange rate channel as a key propagation mechanism. The fiscal consequences of unconventional monetaryeasing tools, like LSAPs, are more complex than those of conventional rate cuts. Conventional monetaryeasing, primarily through reductions in policy interest rates, typically bolsters the fiscal position by stimulatingeconomic growth, raise tax revenues, and by lowering government debt servicing costs.3This approach alsohas a minimal impact on central bank balance sheets. In contrast, LSAPs can strain central bank finances.These purchases expose central banks to potential capital losses and higher funding costs if interest rates rise.However, LSAPs can also have positive fiscal effects—such as influencing asset prices