CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Economic Theory and PolicyMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactIncome, Poverty, and Inequality

Central banking and inequalities: Taking off the blinders

Open access
Fontan, Clément, Claveau, François, Dietsch, Peter·2016·Politics, Philosophy & Economics
DOI 10.1177/1470594x16651056
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

What is the relation between monetary policy and inequalities in income and wealth? This question has received insufficient attention, especially in light of the unconventional policies introduced since the 2008 financial crisis. The article analyzes three ways in which the concern central banks show for inequalities in their official statements remains incomplete and underdeveloped. First, central banks tend to care about inequality for instrumental reasons only. When they do assign intrinsic value to containing inequalities, they shy away from trade-offs with the standard objectives of monetary policy that such a position entails. Second, central banks play down the causal impact monetary policy has on inequalities. When they do acknowledge it, they defend their actions by claiming that it is an unintended side effect, that it is temporary, and/or that any alternative policy would fare even worse. The article appeals to the doctrine of double effect to criticize these arguments. Third, even if one accepts that inequalities should be contained and that today’s monetary policies exacerbate them, is it both desirable and feasible to make containing inequalities part of the mandate of central banks? The article analyzes and rejects three attempts on the part of central banks to answer this question negatively.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1470594x16651056

Cites

58 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It can be argued that central bankers did not give serious consideration to ostensibly less inegalitarian policy alternatives, such as helicopter money.

    “First, it can indeed be argued (e.g., Fontan, Claveau, and Dietsch 2016, 336-7) that central bankers did not give serious consideration to ostensibly less inegalitarian policy alternatives, such as for instance helicopter money (e.g., Blyth and Lonergan 2014).”

    From Independent Agencies, Distribution, and Legitimacy: The Case of Central Banks (2020) · cites this paper as Fontan, Claveau, and Dietsch 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Blyth M, 2014, Foreign Affairs, 93, 98
  2. Brunnermeier MK, Sannikov Y (2012) Redistributive monetary policy. Jackson Hole Symposium 2013. Available at: http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2012/Brun_Sannikov_final.pdf (accessed 23 May 2016).
  3. Clausing K, 2016, Global Tax Governance – What is Wrong With It and How to Fix It, 27
  4. Dworkin R, 1981, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10, 185
  5. Dworkin R, 1981, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10, 283
  6. Fontan C, 2013, Politique Européenne, 42, 10
  7. Goodhart C, 2004, Moneda y Crédito, 218, 11
  8. IMF, 2015, Uneven Growth: Short- and Long-Term Factors
  9. Parfit D, 1997, Ratio (New Series), 3, 202
  10. Saez E (2013) Striking it richer: the evolution of top incomes in the United States. Real - World Economics Review, no. 65. Available at: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue65/Saez65.pdf (accessed 23 May 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fontan, C., Claveau, F., & Dietsch, P.
Affiliations
  • Centre de recherche en éthique, Canada
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Dietsch, Peter
ORCID
Venue
Politics, Philosophy & Economics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-07-31
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
319-357
ISSN
  • 1470-594X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3060
DOI
10.1177/1470594x16651056
OpenAlex
W2410333912
Semantic Scholar
cea2c7d8eb55d80c2c51567ee317ec6f73591888
Cited by
62
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Politics Philosophy & Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economic Theory and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Monetary Policy and Economic Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
Keywords
central banking, monetary policy, income inequality, wealth inequality, central bank mandate, unconventional monetary policy, 2008 financial crisis, doctrine of double effect, unintended side effects, distributive justice, monetary policy trade-offs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review