海外之声 | 具有政治性的货币政策使债券收益率对财政状况的敏感度日益加强（中英双语）

观点速递

本文作者是新加坡经济咨询公司Landfall Strategy Group董事大卫·斯基林（David Skilling），原文摘自2018年1月29日的国际货币金融机构官方论坛评论（OMFIF Commentary），OMFIF是一家总部位于伦敦的全球金融智库。

作者提出，货币政策具有政治性，债券收益率对财政状况的敏感度日益增强，从2018年开始，量化宽松在美国渐入尾声，市场也在对欧洲的紧缩政策进行定价。政府债券利率正在上涨，有观点认为持续了35年的债券牛市将出现反转。宽松的货币政策在过去几年里对分配产生了影响。经济管理的政治性会更加突出，从而对央行的独立性带来风险，以需求的形式来使利率更久地维持在较低水平。政治现实或会影响常规化进程的有序化，经济管理不太可能是纯技术性的工作。全世界正在从基于规则的政策体系转向更多的政策谨慎和管制。

中文译文如下：

货币政策具有政治性

债券收益率对财政状况的敏感度日益加强

大卫·斯基林

翻译：赵文静

审校：陆可凡

2018年1月29日

比尔·克林顿的政治顾问詹姆斯·卡维尔（James Carville）表示，如果有来生，他愿意回到债券市场，因为“你可以令所有人恐惧”。债券义勇军在全世界巡逻已经有一段时间了，到处打击各国政府的财政政策。值得注意的是，现在，两年期国债利率已经比希腊的国债利率高出超过60个基点。尽管公共债务份额达到意大利130%的国内生产总值的一半，德国10年期国债收益率只比意大利国债低150个基点。

而这主要归因于央行采取了积极的举动。大型央行的集体资产负债表已从2008年1月份的约4万亿美元上涨到超过15万亿美元，压低了利率。

但从2018年开始，量化宽松在美国渐入尾声，市场也在对欧洲的紧缩政策进行定价。政府债券利率正在上涨，有观点认为持续了35年的债券牛市将出现反转。

过去几年，比起财政政策，货币政策更为瞩目。但这一相对而言更具技术性的决策过程，正在变得更加具有政治色彩。

常规化将导致政府偿债成本增加。即使公共债务增加了大约50％，经合组织成员国的净利息支出大约是20年前的一半。七国集团的平均公共债务负担达到了国内生产总值的100%。适应性货币政策将可能使政府增加花费。

随着量化宽松政策的退出，债券收益率对财政政策的敏感度将加强。各国央行大规模购买政府债券，降低了债券市场的纪律性，缩小了低公债和高公债国家之间的收益率差。

此外，还需要财政工具来应对退出量化宽松带来的波动以及未来的经济冲击。发达经济体普遍出现了结构性压力，较为显著的是老龄化人口的成本和新技术带来的破坏性影响。对财政资源，如社会保险、技能和教育举措，也需要应对措施。

一般来说，瑞士、北欧国家、新西兰和新加坡这样的小型先进经济体，在应对这些问题时举措相对得当。自全球金融危机以来，小型经济体展现出了财政纪律性，许多小型经济体都维持了财政收支平衡或达到平衡水平以上，其公共债务水平相对低而且稳定。

但是，还有其他更多债务缠身的政府深受财政政策变化的影响。英国（约占国内生产总值的90％）和美国（约占国内生产总值的110％）的公共债务水平很高，法国和西班牙（均约为GDP的100％）也是如此。日本是个特例（总负债占国内生产总值的240%，净债务占国内生产总值的120％）。其中有些国家可能会经历更大幅度的债券市场审查，同时在应对经济动态和冲击方面也会受限。

较高的利率将对家庭和企业产生重大影响。国际清算银行的报告显示，全球私人部门债务（家庭加公司债务）上升，在2017年第二季度超过了国内生产总值的140％。

常规化过程将兼具政治、经济和金融意义。即使在国内生产总值提高的情况下，利率上升和现有财政约束二者相结合，为在增加税收和减少支出（或较高债务）之间如何选择的政治冲突提供了肥沃土壤。宽松的货币政策在过去几年里对分配产生了影响。经济管理的政治性会更加突出，从而对央行的独立性带来风险，以需求的形式来使利率更久地维持在较低水平。

政治现实或会影响常规化进程的有序化，经济管理不太可能是纯技术性的工作。全世界正在从基于规则的政策体系转向更多的政策谨慎和管制。

大卫·斯基林（David Skilling）是新加坡经济咨询公司Landfall Strategy Group董事。

英文原文如下：

Monetary policy is political

Bond yields increasingly sensitive to fiscal position

by David Skilling in Singapore

Mon 29 Jan 2018

Bill Clinton's political advisor James Carville said that if reincarnated, he wanted to come back as the bond market because 'you can intimidate everybody'. It has been some time since bond vigilantes roamed the world, sanctioning government fiscal policy. Remarkably, two-year Treasury rates are now more than 60 basis points higher than their Greek equivalents. And German 10-year Bund rates are only 150 basis points lower than Italian rates despite a public debt share that is half of Italy's 130% of GDP.

Much of this is due to aggressive central bank action. Large central banks' collective balance sheets have risen to more than $15tn, from about $4tn in January 2008, suppressing interest rates.

But as we start 2018, the end of quantitative easing is getting underway in the US and markets are pricing European tightening in. Government bond rates are moving up, and there is talk of the 35-year bond bull market reversing.

Monetary policy has been more prominent than fiscal policy over the past several years. But this relatively technocratic decision-making process is changing into one in which politics is more prominent.

Normalisation will cause government debt servicing costs to increase. Net interest payments by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development governments are about half of what they were 20 years ago, even as public debt has increased by around 50%. The average G7 gross public debt load is about 100% of GDP. Monetary accommodation has allowed governments to spend more than they otherwise could have.

And as QE unwinds, bond yields will be increasingly sensitive to fiscal policy. Central banks' large-scale purchasing of government securities has reduced the intensity of bond market discipline, compressing the difference in yield between low and high public debt countries.

Fiscal instruments will also be needed to manage some of the economic volatility associated with the unwinding of QE, as well as to respond to future economic shocks. Structural pressures are emerging across advanced economies, notably the cost of aging populations and the disruptive effects of new technologies. Fiscal resources, such as social insurance, skills and education initiatives, will be required in response.

In general, small advanced economies – such as Switzerland, the Nordics, New Zealand and Singapore – are relatively well placed to respond. Small economies have exercised fiscal discipline since the global financial crisis; many are running at or above fiscal balance, and have relatively low, stable public debt levels.

However, there are other more indebted governments that are deeply exposed to changing fiscal policy. The UK (roughly 90% of GDP) and the US (roughly 110% of GDP) have high gross public debt levels, as do France and Spain (both about 100% of GDP). Japan is an outlier (gross debt of 240% of GDP, net debt of 120% of GDP). Several of these countries are likely to attract greater bond market scrutiny as well as be constrained in responding to economic dynamics and shocks.

Higher interest rates will have a material impact on households and corporates. The Bank for International Settlements reports rising levels of private sector debt worldwide (household plus corporate debt), at over 140% of GDP in Q2 2017.

The process of normalisation will be as much political as economic and financial. The combination of rising interest rates and existing fiscal constraints provides fertile ground for political conflict over choices between higher taxes and reduced spending (or higher debt), even in the context of improving GDP. Monetary accommodation has had distributive consequences over the past several years. The politics of economic management will become more heated, creating risks for central bank independence in the form of demand for interest rates to remain lower for longer.

Political realities may intrude on an orderly normalisation process. Economic management is unlikely to be a purely technical exercise. There is a global shift underway from rules-based policy systems to more policy discretion and control.

David Skilling is Director of the Landfall Strategy Group, a Singapore-based economic advisory firm.

内容整理 叶祎然

图文编辑 叶祎然

审校  田雯

监制  朱霜霜

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。

入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。

欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。

关于我们

中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。

研究所长期聚焦国际金融、宏观经济理论与政策、金融科技、财富管理、金融监管、地方金融等领域，定期举办高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《中国财富管理报告》《金融科技二十讲》等一大批具有重要学术和政策影响力的产品。

2016年，研究所入围《中国智库大数据报告》影响力榜单列高校智库第4位，并在“中国经济类研究机构市场价值排行榜（2016）”中名列第32位。

国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn

微信号：IMI财经观察

（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）

理事单位申请、

学术研究和会议合作

联系方式:  

010-62516755 

[e-mail]

只分享最有价值的财经视点

We only share the most valuable financial insights.