{"title":"The Keynesian Stimulus Model: Stimulating Economic Activities with Direct Transfers","authors":"Christopher Achazie Osuoha","doi":"10.5296/rae.v15i1.20672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Governments use direct transfers as a fiscal measure to stimulate economic activities during shocks. As COVID-19 continues to ravage economies globally, governments worldwide have responded with fiscal and monetary policies to manage the pandemic’s economic impact. In addition, the U.S. government has intervened with direct transfers to provide liquidity to prevent a prolonged shock. However, opinions are divided on the efficacy of the Keynesian stimulus policy. This study used a mixed-method research design to analyze the classical Keynesian model and compares it with the monetarist model to provide insight into the stimulus policy outcomes of the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and subsequent policies used to manage the COVID-19 shock. Time-series data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) of the percentage changes in GDP, disposable personal income (DPI), and personal consumption expenditure (PCE), as well as unemployment rates (UR), interest rates (INT), and inflation rates (IFL), were collected and analyzed. The study used multiple regression (MR) to empirically examine the variables' relationships to ascertain both models’ short-term efficacy. The results suggest that DPI, PCE, and UR significantly predicted the percentage change in GDP in the Keynesian model, whereas, UR, INT, and IFL did not substantially predict the change in GDP in the monetarist model.","PeriodicalId":225665,"journal":{"name":"Research in Applied Economics","volume":"493 1-2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Applied Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5296/rae.v15i1.20672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Governments use direct transfers as a fiscal measure to stimulate economic activities during shocks. As COVID-19 continues to ravage economies globally, governments worldwide have responded with fiscal and monetary policies to manage the pandemic’s economic impact. In addition, the U.S. government has intervened with direct transfers to provide liquidity to prevent a prolonged shock. However, opinions are divided on the efficacy of the Keynesian stimulus policy. This study used a mixed-method research design to analyze the classical Keynesian model and compares it with the monetarist model to provide insight into the stimulus policy outcomes of the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and subsequent policies used to manage the COVID-19 shock. Time-series data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) of the percentage changes in GDP, disposable personal income (DPI), and personal consumption expenditure (PCE), as well as unemployment rates (UR), interest rates (INT), and inflation rates (IFL), were collected and analyzed. The study used multiple regression (MR) to empirically examine the variables' relationships to ascertain both models’ short-term efficacy. The results suggest that DPI, PCE, and UR significantly predicted the percentage change in GDP in the Keynesian model, whereas, UR, INT, and IFL did not substantially predict the change in GDP in the monetarist model.
政府利用直接转移支付作为财政措施,在经济受到冲击时刺激经济活动。随着COVID-19继续肆虐全球经济,世界各国政府已采取财政和货币政策应对,以管理大流行的经济影响。此外,美国政府通过直接转移资金进行干预,提供流动性,以防止长期冲击。然而,对于凯恩斯主义刺激政策的效果,人们的意见存在分歧。本研究采用混合方法研究设计,分析经典凯恩斯模型,并将其与货币主义模型进行比较,以深入了解2020年《冠状病毒援助、救济和经济安全法案》(CARES Act of 2020)和随后用于管理COVID-19冲击的政策的刺激政策结果。从经济分析局(BEA)、劳工统计局(BLS)和联邦储备银行(Fed)收集并分析了GDP、个人可支配收入(DPI)、个人消费支出(PCE)以及失业率(UR)、利率(INT)和通货膨胀率(IFL)的百分比变化的时序数据。本研究采用多元回归(MR)实证检验变量之间的关系,以确定两种模型的短期有效性。结果表明,在凯恩斯主义模型中,DPI、PCE和UR显著地预测了GDP的百分比变化,而在货币主义模型中,UR、INT和IFL并没有实质性地预测GDP的变化。