Volume 9, Number 1
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Knut Wicksell: The Birth of Modern
Monetary Policy
 |
| For
many years, the Federal Reserve has used
influence on short-term interest rates to
contain inflationary pressure in the American
economy and promote growth and employment.
The genesis of this approach and its theoretical
foundation both lie in the work of Knut
Wicksell, one of the 20th century’s
more colorful and eclectic economists.
Wicksell was a free
thinker, a lifelong socialist, a mentor
to several justifiably famous Swedish economists
who followed him, and one of the most influential
economists of his time. His ongoing exchanges
over the role of money in generating changes
in prices—a dispute in which he and
American economist Irving Fisher were the
central players—predated the mid-20th
century clash between Keynesian and monetarist
views of business cycles and correct price
stabilization policy.
For those interested
in the early work done on the quantity theory
of money, the relationship between interest
rates, money, prices and real factors, and
the ways in which they might affect the
macro economy, we offer you this issue of
Economic Insights.
| — |
Bob McTeer
President
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas |
|
 |
|
Knut Wicksell: The
Birth of Modern Monetary Policy
Johan Gustav Knut Wicksell was
born in 1851 in Stockholm. His mother died when he was
6, and his father, a moderately successful businessman
and real estate investor, died when Knut was 15. His
father’s estate provided sufficient funds for
him to enroll at the University of Uppsala in 1869,
where he studied mathematics and physics. Within two
years, he had taken his first degree and gone on to
graduate work. He passed two of the three required examinations
for a doctorate in mathematics in 1875 but waited until
1885 to finish the third. By then, Wicksell had become
a well-known social critic and lecturer, and his interests
had changed to the social sciences, and to economics
in particular.
Early in his life, Wicksell had
studied the Bible at great length and even contemplated
a religious calling. But as he read social science tracts
in college, including George Drysdale’s influential
The Elements of Social Science, his calling
as a social scientist became clear. His interests turned
to controversial topics such as human sexuality and
birth control, discussed at length in Drysdale’s
essentially Malthusian tome.[1]
In 1880, Wicksell gave his first
public address on such a topic at Uppsala. The lecture
was titled “The Most Common Causes of Habitual
Drunkenness and How to Remove Them.” At the time,
the ideas Wicksell expressed in this lecture about the
relationship between worker alienation, poverty, and
the social ills of alcohol and prostitution were considered
radical, even socialist. The controversial nature of
this and subsequent lectures resulted in much publicity
for Wicksell, who used his notoriety to earn a meager
living by speaking publicly, then writing his speeches
for publication.
In 1885, funded by the sale of
some family-owned properties, Wicksell was able to spend
a year in London reading the major works of the classical
economists. During his stay, a small, obscure foundation—the
Victor Lorén Foundation—awarded him a three-year
grant to study economics in Germany and Austria. Although
the Lorén will was contested, it was settled
in Wicksell’s favor in 1887, and he received the
promised funds. Had it not been for this grant, Wicksell
might well not have become an economist.
In Vienna, Wicksell heard lectures
by Austrian economist Carl Menger. He also attended
lectures at the Universities of Strassburg, Berlin and
Paris. He then returned to Sweden, but his radical reputation
prevented him from getting a position at the University
of Stockholm.
In the summer of 1887, Wicksell
took a common-law wife, Anna Bugge. By 1893, he had
two sons but still no permanent position with which
to support his family. During the 1890s, his work in
economics—some of it pathbreaking, such as Value,
Capital and Rent (1892), his first major work—
went largely unnoticed. But his radical speeches continued
to earn him another sort of notice.
Wicksell’s second major
economic work, Studies in the Theory of Public Finance,
published in 1896, was a groundbreaking application
of marginal thinking to such issues as progressive taxation,
optimum tax prices for public and semipublic goods,
public utilities and oligopolies characterized by cartel
behavior. Interest and Prices, a work on monetary
economics, was published in 1898.
On the strength of his published
economic work, Wicksell applied to the University of
Uppsala for a doctorate in economics. One was finally
granted, with honors, in 1896. He was still denied an
economics professorship, however, because at that time
in Sweden economics was taught in law school, and Wicksell
lacked a law degree. So he borrowed money and moved
his family to Uppsala, where he finished the four-year
law degree in two years. He became a lecturer at the
University of Uppsala, but his income there depended
solely on the number of students who took his tutorials.
In 1900, at the age of 49, he finally received a teaching
position in economics at the University of Lund, although
the position was not fully funded until 1904.
University life was productive
for Wicksell. In addition to teaching classes in tax
law and economics, he wrote Lectures on Political
Economy (volumes 1 and 2, 1901 and 1906) and numerous
articles on pre– and post–World War I policy
issues. He favored a mild form of socialism, achieved
gradually and built on the foundations of a welfare
state. Sweden came to represent precisely this vision
as the 20th century unfolded.
In 1908, in a stand for free speech
and against the advice of friends, he gave a lecture
that satirized the Immaculate Conception. The lecture,
which Wicksell intended as a test case, resulted in
a two-month jail sentence. He served the term in 1910
after a lower court’s decision was upheld on appeal.
After retiring from Lund in 1916,
Wicksell and his wife moved to Stockholm, where he continued
to write profusely and advise the government on banking
and financial issues. He also supervised doctoral dissertations
in economics, often for students who later became famous
in their own right, such as Bertil Ohlin and joint Nobel
Prize winner (with F. A. Hayek) Gunnar Myrdal. He died
in Stockholm in May 1926 while working on an article
on the theory of interest that was to be included in
a book honoring Austrian economist Friedrich von Wieser.
Many of Wicksell’s theoretical
extensions went unrecognized during his lifetime. It
was only after his death that his major works were translated
and appreciated, leading Mark Blaug, one of the foremost
historians of economic thought, to proclaim that Wicksell
“more or less founded modern macroeconomics”
(Blaug 1986, 274).
Major Contributions to Economics
Wicksell’s work is
linked directly to three major traditions in economic
theory:
- the quantity theory of money and its implications
for allowing an analysis of aggregate macro outcomes
as well as their appropriate monetary policies;
- the Austrian theory of business cycles, which uses
Wicksell’s concept of a natural rate of interest;
- and the modern Public Choice paradigm in public
finance, which is based on Wicksell’s contentions
regarding interest groups in democracies.
According to Blaug (1986, 272),
Wicksell’s work was an attempt at “integrating
general equilibrium theory [learned from Leon Walras],
the Austrian theory of capital [learned from Eugen von
Böhm-Bawerk’s 1884 classic Capital and
Interest: History and Critique of Interest Theories]
and interest, and the marginal productivity theory of
income distribution [learned from David Ricardo’s
1817 treatise On the Principles of Political Economy
and Taxation].” While working on his grand
synthesis of these three theoretical approaches, Wicksell
made improvements to each for which he is remembered
today. The most important is probably his distinction
between the natural and money rates of interest.[2]
The money, or market, rate of
interest is the observed rate at which banks carry on
credit transactions. The natural rate is a bit more
complicated. Wicksell variously defined it as the rate
that is neutral for commodity prices and the rate at
which the supply and demand for capital are in equilibrium
in an economy not using money at all. The tie-in
between Wicksell and the Austrians is straightforward:
In the Austrian business cycle theory, a boom emerges
when the natural rate of interest is higher than the
market rate, which is subject to manipulations by humans
using sophisticated financial institutions and credit
instruments that drive the market rate below the natural,
equilibrium rate.
This is Wicksell’s “cumulative
process” model of business cycles. When the loan
(market) rate of interest is below the natural rate,
the demand for loans by entrepreneurs exceeds the quantity
of savings in the economy. Banks expand credit by creating
checking accounts (demand deposits) rather than by supplying
savings, and an economic expansion occurs that must,
other things being equal, drive up prices. Although
Wicksell’s process does not demand a monetary
change to begin, it is perfectly consistent with—and
this is what the Austrians later emphasized— a
lowering of the market interest rate through central
bank monetary injections.
Ludwig von Mises and Hayek took
Wicksell’s cumulative cycle process much further.[3]
They combined it with the doctrine of forced savings
to create a monetary theory of cycles in which the money
interest rate divergence from the natural rate, generated
by expansionary central bank policy or by an unanticipated
inflow of gold specie working its way through the banking
system, creates a distortion in the time structure of
production between capital goods and consumer goods
that cannot be maintained. This results in a necessary
economic downturn during which all of the boom’s
“malinvestments” have to be liquidated.
The Austrians’ extension of Wicksell’s analysis
was the major business cycle theory innovation before
John Maynard Keynes wrote The General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money in 1936, and it
remains an alternative money-generated cycle theory
today.[4]
Understood within the context
of Wicksell’s model, the interest rate divergence
phenomenon was crucial for understanding the differences
between Wicksell’s treatment of the quantity theory
of money and the view held by his main rival, American
economist Irving Fisher. For Fisher, changes in the
quantity of money fully explained changes in long-run
prices; for Wicksell, the quantity of money was but
one aspect of the mechanism that changed prices because
the flow of goods and services worked its way through
the economy by first changing interest rates.
Keynes no doubt read and appreciated
Wicksell’s approach and then built on it, stressing
that cycles were generated by changes in real factors
such as investment spending and interest rates and not
by monetary changes. The seeds of the Keynesian–monetarist
debates that began in the 1960s were planted first in
the differences between Fisher and Wicksell. Nonetheless—and
surprisingly—despite Fisher’s and Wicksell’s
seemingly disparate theoretical approaches, both men
reached the same implied policy conclusion: A nation’s
central bank does bear the responsibility for controlling
the long-run price level.[5]
Another important Wicksell theoretical
element connecting major economists is the “real
shock” cyclic view, also emphasized by Austrian
economist Joseph Schumpeter, who saw innovators and
entrepreneurs as an often destabilizing shock to the
market economy, giving rise to what he called “creative
destruction.” In this sense, there is a continuous
thread that runs from Wicksell, through Schumpeter,
and on to Keynes’ influential nonmonetary model
of business cycles. The modern Keynesian–monetarist
dispute over the role of money and its effects on the
macroeconomy has its roots in the earlier Fisher–Wicksell
differences concerning the nature and causes of cycles.
Wicksell perfectly anticipated
modern central bank monetary policy when he argued that
interest rates must be changed to control prices. He
favored price-level stabilization because he felt that
inflation and deflation were unfair income redistributive
events, where some gained at others’ expense.
His policy rule was simple: If prices were rising, then
interest rates were too low; if prices were falling,
then rates were too high. His exposition and extension
of the quantity and marginal productivity theories ensure
him a permanent place in the development of modern macroeconomic
thought.
| — |
Robert L. Formaini
Senior Economist |
 |
| Notes
- Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834)
authored his famous “An Essay on
the Principle of Population” in
1798. In this essay, Malthus argued that
population growth is limited by the supply
of food and that because population grows
faster (geometrically) than the food supply
(arithmetically), poverty is not a curable
but an inevitable, long-run condition.
Because social reformers’ schemes
to better the lot of humanity seemed to
run aground on Malthus’ dreary predictions
about starvation and poverty, all such
reformers, including Wicksell, had to
effectively deal with Malthus’ pessimistic
contention in their own work. Today, those
who hold the view that overpopulation
and environmental degradation are an increasing
concern are often referred to as neo-Malthusians.
- The natural rate was also called, in
Wicksell’s various writings, “neutral,”
“normal” and “real.”
The money rate was also sometimes called
the “market” rate.
- For more information, see Robert Formaini,
“Ludwig von Mises,” Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic
Insights,
vol. 6, no. 4, and “Hayek,”
Economic Insights,
vol. 4, no. 1.
- See Laidler (1991), 146. For a modern
exposition of the Austrian economic theory,
see Roger W. Garrison (2001), Time
and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital
Structure (London: Routledge).
- Humphrey (1997), 72.
Sources and Suggested
Reading
Blaug, Mark (1986),
Great Economists before Keynes: An Introduction
to the Lives and Works of One Hundred Great
Economists of the Past (New York: Cambridge
University Press), 272–75.
Humphrey, Thomas M.
(1993), “The Origins of Velocity Functions,”
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic
Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 4 (Fall), 1–17.
———
(1997), “Fisher and Wicksell on the
Quantity Theory,” Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly,
vol. 83, no. 4 (Fall), 71–90.
———
(2002), “Knut Wicksell and Gustav
Cassel on the Cumulative Process and the
Price-Stabilizing Policy Rule,” Federal
Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly,
vol. 88, no. 3 (Summer), 59–83.
Laidler, David (1991),
The Golden Age of the Quantity Theory:
The Development of Neoclassical Monetary
Economics, 1870–1914 (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press).
Uhr, C. G. (1987),
“Johan Gustav Knut Wicksell,”
in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of
Economics, ed. John Eatwell, Murray
Milgate and Peter Newman, vol. 4 (London:
Macmillan Press), 901–8.
Wicksell, Knut (1965),
Interest and Prices (New York: Augustus
M. Kelley), orig. pub. 1898, trans. pub.
1936.
———
(1970), Value, Capital and Rent (New
York: Augustus M. Kelley), orig. pub. 1893,
trans. pub. 1954.
———
(1977), Lectures on Political Economy,
vol. 1 (Fairfield, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley),
orig. pub. 1901, trans. pub. 1934.
———
(1978), Lectures on Political Economy,
vol. 2 (Fairfield, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley),
orig. pub. 1906, trans. pub. 1935. |
 |
|
Is Money
a Commodity?
In passing, there
is a point to be noticed. The growth in
the use of money, and the increase in monetary
stocks, tends more and more to reduce the
significance of the commodity characteristics
of money. On the other hand, the development
of the monetary system results in a displacement
of specie by credit instruments and so-called
money substitutes, and there exists, therefore,
an important tendency towards a strengthening
of the commodity aspect of money and of
its influence on prices.
It is sometimes said
to be feasible to base a monetary system
upon gold and yet to dispense entirely,
or almost entirely, with the employment
of gold both in circulation and in the banks’
reserves. This would be done by extending
the use of cheques, by the issue of notes
of which the cover is of a purely banking
nature, and so on. This view, which is held
by some of the most prominent writers on
monetary questions, must be regarded as
utopian. In such a system the value of money
would be directly exposed to the
effects of every fortuitous incident on
the side of the production of the precious
metal and every caprice on the side of its
consumption. It would undergo the same violent
fluctuations as do the values of most other
commodities.
But it would be quite
possible to maintain a stable value of money
without the use of reserves of a precious
metal. Only it would be necessary for the
metal to cease to serve as a standard
of value.
—Interest
and Prices, 34–35; original emphasis |
|
Money’s
Value and Rational Expectations
All practical proposals
for the improvement of currency systems
actually proceed, though more or less consciously,
from the desire to guarantee this stability
of value. When it is said that Governments
or banks should seek to provide enough money
of full value, or a monetary system at once
sound and flexible, all that is
really meant is that the value of money
should be protected against violent fluctuations,
either downwards in the form of the depreciation
of money or upwards in the form of a fall
in commodity prices: this includes a demand
for the preservation of the stability of
value of money in space, i.e. the maintenance
of the currency unit of one country at the
same level as that of another.
Sometimes, it is true,
we hear it said that certain changes in
the value of money, especially a gradual
decline or a progressive rise in commodity
prices, might be preferred under certain
circumstances to complete stability. Rising
prices would act as a stimulus to enterprise
and a falling value of money would free
debtors from the burden of obligations thoughtlessly
incurred. This view is, however, evidently
naïve. It need only be said that if
this fall in the value of money is the result
of our own deliberate policy, or indeed
can be anticipated and foreseen, then these
supposed beneficial effects will never occur,
since the approaching rise in prices will
be taken into account in all transactions
by reasonably intelligent people. What is
contemplated is, therefore, unforeseen rises
in price. The result of this would seem
to be that we should cross our arms and
wait in order not to frustrate the beneficial
workings of nature. But nature does not
always guarantee rising prices; falling
prices also occur.
—Lectures
on Political Economy, vol. 2, 128–29;
original emphasis |
|
Emergence
of the Modern Theory of Value: Marginal
Utility
In other words, the
value in use, according to [John Stuart]
Mill, constitutes the upper limit of value
in exchange. But on further consideration
it appears that the value in exchange cannot
be lower than the value in use either, for
exchange presupposes two exchanging parties,
and while no one will buy a commodity which
has a value in exchange higher
than its value in use, no one will sell
a commodity whose exchange value is lower.
We thus seem to arrive at the remarkable
result that value in use is, at one and
the same time, the upper and the lower limit
of exchange value; or, in other words, is
its exact equivalent. This, however, is
contrary to experience; neither is it easy
to understand how, under such circumstances,
any exchanges whatever could be effected.
The obvious explanation is the well-known
fact that the same thing may possess
different degrees of utility for
different persons, so that the relative
values in use can, at the same moment, be
greater or less than the relative exchange
values for one or other of the exchanging
parties respectively. If we follow
up this train of thought, we shall easily
see that a thing may have quite different
degrees of utility for one and the same
person under different conditions.
The most important circumstance in this
connection is evidently, at least in a primitive
economy, the quantity of the commodity
in one’s possession—or of other
commodities which can, to a greater or lesser
degree, replace it. In a more advanced economy,
the determining condition will be the possession,
or accessibility, of a certain quantity
of the medium of exchange….
But what sets the standard in both cases
is, in the last resort, the quantities of
the various commodities which the person
in question is in a position to consume
in a given unit of time.
Value in use is, therefore,
by its very nature, something variable.
Value in exchange, on the contrary, is always,
or always tends to be, constant and invariable
for each commodity throughout the market.
The question then becomes: which of these
possible, or conceivable, degrees of value
in use determines (or, to express ourselves
more cautiously, is related to) the actual
exchange value of the commodity? The answer
must evidently be: the degree of utility
which it possesses for the exchanging parties
at the moment the exchange is effected….
—Lectures
on Political Economy, vol. 1, 29–30;
original emphasis
|
|
| About
Economic Insights
Economic Insights
is a publication of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas. The views expressed are
those of the authors and should not be attributed
to the Federal Reserve System.
Please address all
correspondence to
Economic
Insights
Public Affairs Department
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
P.O. Box 655906
Dallas, TX 75265-5906 |
|
|