Targeting Constant Money Growth at the Zero Lower Bound

Unconventional policy actions, including quantitative easing and forward guidance, taken by the Federal Reserve during and since the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2007-2009, have been widely interpreted as attempts to influence long-term interest rates after the federal funds rate hit its zero lower bound. Alternatively, similar actions could have been directed at stabilizing the growth rate of a monetary aggregate, so as to maintain a more consistent level of policy accommodation in the face of severe disruptions to the financial sector and the economy at large. This paper bridges the gap between these two views, by developing a structural vector autoregression that uses information contained in both interest rates and a Divisia monetary aggregate to infer the stance of Federal Reserve policy and to gauge its effects on aggregate output and prices. Counterfactual simulations from the SVAR suggest that targeting money growth at the zero lower bound would not only have been feasible, but would also have supported a stronger and more rapid economic recovery since 2010.