|
Bonds
Question: Will Japan’s low interest rates continue to have
a negative impact on the Japanese economy?
-- Soji Fujakawa, Tokyo, Japan 01/07/98 09:46PM
Investment Life Expert Response:
Recently a comforting theory of Japan's woes has taken hold in
respectable circles: it's all a banking problem. Fix Japan's banks,
the conventional wisdom has it, and the economy will regain its
vitality. This is why the recent passage of a large bank rescue
package is seen as a turning point.
The problem with this theory is not just that it is almost surely
wrong. The fact that smart people are putting their faith in such
a dubious explanation is an indicator of the continuing reluctance
of the policy elite, in Japan and outside, to face up to the unsettling
implications of the country's recent experience.
The immediate problem with Japan's economy is not in question:
even at a near-zero interest rate, aggregate demand is inadequate
to employ the country's productive capacity. Or to put the same
point differently, at full employment Japanese savings would exceed
Japanese investment by more than the country's current account surplus.
To believe that banking reform will heal the Japanese economy,
you must believe that it will sharply reduce this savings-investment
gap. Call it the "clogged pipe" theory: it says that the weakness
of Japan's banks depresses investment, because it prevents liquidity
from getting through to credit-constrained firms.
Does this make any sense? Japan has not suffered from bank runs
and massive disintermediation: the public continues to believe,
correctly, that its deposits will be protected. And as long as this
belief holds, the logic of moral hazard says that bad banks - banks
with low or negative capital - tend to be more, not less, willing
to make risky loans than they should, because they have an incentive
to play the game "heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose".
The same logic says that such banks will actually not want more
capital, since it reduces the value of their deposit insurance "put"
- and indeed, Japanese banks that have applied for capital injections
have made it clear that they are doing so only as a favour to the
government, to avoid making its rescue plan look foolish.
Experience confirms this logic: overlending by undercapitalised
banks was the driving force behind America's savings and loan crisis
in the 1980s. But if you accept this logic, you should believe that
increasing the capital of Japanese banks will reduce rather than
increase their willingness to lend - actually worsening the savings-investment
gap.
True, in the past year or so there have been many complaints about
a credit crunch in Japan. (Before then there is no evidence at all
that credit conditions were a source of economic stagnation).
The timing of these complaints is no mystery: they began when the
government announced new capital standards for banks, and in general
signaled that it was unwilling to allow the questionable lending
that had persisted through the previous six years of stagnation
to continue. But consider what this timing implies for the nature
of the "crunch". It says that the problem is not that there are
currently loans Japanese banks should be making, but aren't; it
is that a year or two ago there were loans banks shouldn't have
been making, but were.
Suppose that even (or especially) with healthy banks, and even
with near-zero interest rates, Japan still suffers from an excess
of savings over profitable investments. Then one cannot avoid concluding
that some kind of deeply unconventional response is necessary. You
don't have to accept my own notorious proposal for "managed inflation",
although to me the case for believing that Japan's economy needs
a negative real interest rate, and hence needs inflation, seems
overwhelming.
But you must accept that something radical, something that would
normally be considered unsound policy, is the only way out. The
real significance of the fixation on banks as the be-all and end-all
of the problem, then, is that it means that Japan and those who
advise it are not yet prepared to rethink their ideas of what constitutes
sound policy. And that, I fear, means that there is not yet even
a glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel.
Dr. Eiji Mori, Ph.D., Visiting Adjunct Professor of Economics,
University of Chicago

Would you like to submit a question for our resident expert? Using
the form provided below, tell us the nature of your question. Be as
complete as possible, and be sure to include your name, country and
e-mail address. We look forward to hearing from you!
|