Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) と主流派の齟齬と一致を解剖する(An Analysis of Difference and Coincidence between MMT and Mainstream Economics)

34 Pages Posted: 22 Apr 2021 Last revised: 30 Jun 2021

Date Written: April 12, 2021


Japanese Abstract: 日本語要約:
本稿では、MMT派と(いわゆる)主流派の間における経済論議上の齟齬と一致について、大きく3つのカテゴリー(財政問題、金融システムと金融政策論、及び財政政策論)に分けて論じた。財政問題に関しては、通貨発行権と変動相場制を有する国での受動的な財政不履行の不在についてMMT派・主流派が相互に一致し得ることを確認した。その上で、「再定義された財政破綻」について双方の主張を吟味し、各々批判を加え、さらに止揚的な解として長期停滞モデルが有用なのではないかという示唆を行なった。財政「黒字」問題、及び政府部門赤字と民間部門赤字の非対称性についても、MMT派・主流派の両面から検討した。金融システム・金融政策論については、信用創造理解、及び内生的貨幣供給理論の点での両者の乖離を指摘しつつ、主流派側による整合論について、主に政策金利と総需要の間の関係の不確実性と不安定性の面から批判を加えた。そうした批判は、MMT派からだけでなく、最近の主流派内部の議論からも成り立つことを確認した。財政政策論については、まずクラウディング・アウトとマンデル・フレミング効果について論じ、MMT派的な金融財政理解をモデルに組み込む方向性としてIS-MPを検討することで、いずれの効果も自明ではない(成立しないことがありうる)ということを論じた。リカード=バローの中立問題、FTPL、政府債務の将来世代負担問題については、いずれも財政の持続可能性の状況についての前提によって議論が左右されることを確認した。最後に、財政の硬直化については、ミンスキーの系譜を引くMMT のカンザスシティ・アプローチにおける懸念と主流派の経済学/財政学の懸念が協調的であることを指摘した。

English Abstract: This paper discusses the difference and coincidence in economic debates between MMT and (so-called) mainstream economics in three major categories: fiscal collapse, financial system & monetary policy, and fiscal policy. Regarding fiscal collapse, I confirmed that MMT and mainstream economists can mutually agree on the absence of passive fiscal default in currency-issuing government and floating exchange rate systems. The paper then examines both sides' arguments for a "redefined fiscal collapse," criticizes each side's arguments, and suggests that the secular stagnation model may be useful as an integrated solution. The issue of "fiscal surplus" and the asymmetry between government and private sector deficits are also examined from both MMT and mainstream perspectives. With regard to the financial system & monetary policy, I pointed out the divergence between MMT and mainstream economics in terms of the understanding of money creation and the theory of endogenous money supply, and criticized the mainstream's "consistent" view between money multiplier and endogenous money mainly from the perspective of the uncertainty and instability of the relationship between the policy rate and aggregate demand. I confirmed that such criticism is not only from the MMT, but also from the recent internal debate within mainstream economics. Regarding fiscal policy argument, I first discussed crowding out and the Mandel-Fleming effect, and then argued that both effects are non-trivial (and may not hold) by examining IS-MP as a direction to incorporate the MMT's understanding of monetary and fiscal policy into the model. Regarding the Ricardo-Barro equivalence theorem, the FTPL, and the issue of the burden of government debt on future generations, I confirmed that the debates depend on assumptions about the state of fiscal sustainability. Finally, regarding fiscal rigidity, I pointed out that the concerns in the Kansas City Approach of MMT, which is of Minsky's lineage, and those of mainstream economics/public finance studies are coordinated.

Note: Downloadable document available in Chinese.

Keywords: MMT, Secular Stagnation, Post Keynesian, Fiscal Policy, Monetary Policy, Government Budget Constraint, Money Creation, Fiscal Collapse, Kansas City Approach, IS-LM

JEL Classification: E, G

Suggested Citation

Mochizuki, Shin, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) と主流派の齟齬と一致を解剖する(An Analysis of Difference and Coincidence between MMT and Mainstream Economics) (April 12, 2021). Available at SSRN: or

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics