Discovery at Carlson·22 During Financial Crises, Cash Payments Can (and Do) Help
During Financial Crises, Cash Payments Can (and Do) Help
When the COVID-19 pandemic erupted last year, the federal government sought to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn through the Paycheck Protection Program and stimulus payments to individuals. A decade earlier, during the financial crisis of 2008-2009, programs were established that allowed government to lend to cash-strapped businesses.
But do such programs work? “That is what we try to shine a light on in the paper,” says Richard Thakor, a Carlson School assistant professor of finance. That paper, The Effect of Cash Injections: Evidence from the 1980s Farm Debt Crisis, was recently published in The Review of Financial Studies. Thakor co-authored the paper with his PhD advisors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): Nittai Bergman (now with the Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv University) and Rajkamal Iyer (currently teaching at the Imperial College Business School in London).

The idea for the paper, Thakor says, “came from a pretty classical idea in finance that has had a lot of influence but to our knowledge hasn’t had a very thorough test.” He describes this idea, called a financial accelerator, this way: “When you have a lot of financial frictions, like people having trouble getting needed money or credit, any sort of shock -like the economy going bad- can be amplified across time.”
The effects of different financial frictions on small businesses, and the effects of government payment programs on those frictions, are topics that have long intrigued Thakor. To see how the financial accelerator idea works in real life, he and his co-authors chose to look not at government stimulus payments but at something different, and surprising: the impact of temperature changes on Iowa corn yields during the farm debt crisis of the 1980s.
Why? “If we looked at cash payments just during the debt crisis or the financial crisis or even during the pandemic, it’s hard to tell whether those are good or bad because a lot of times, the government is targeting the companies that are performing the worst,” Thakor says. In such situations, “there might be a positive cash flow effect from a cash flow transfer from the government. But we would have difficulty seeing it.”
By looking at temperature’s impact on corn yields, “we’re looking at cash flow shocks that are completely random and are not targeted or controlled by the government,” Thakor notes. This “traces very cleanly what the effect of that is. That allows us to translate what that effect would be during other times of financial crises.”
During the 1980s farm crisis, just one unseasonably hot day could reduce annual yields by about three percent, significantly hurting farm income. “Whereas when we looked outside of the farm debt crisis, we actually didn’t find any effect” on income,” Thakor says. In non-crisis periods, farmers and ag-related businesses can mitigate shocks through borrowing. However, during crises, money is tight, banks aren’t lending, and the effect of the financial shock “accelerates” through the economy.
That is, unless the government steps in. What Thakor found is that every $1 of government cash transfer received during a crisis generated $1.60 in additional income. A cash transfer “helps to strengthen the financial sector,” Thakor says. “We see a lower probability that banks will fail, for example.” In sum, “programs that give companies and individuals money during times of crises actually do have beneficial effects.”
It’s a conclusion that, given the economic challenges of the pandemic, is “very applicable to what’s going on today,” Thakor says.

政府补助有利于缓解金融危机
新冠疫情爆发后,美国联邦政府试图通过薪酬保护项目和国民消费券来缓解经济低迷带来的影响。在2008-2009年金融危机期间,政府也曾出台政策,向资金短缺的企业发放贷款。
但这些项目是否有效?“这正是这篇论文试图说明的问题。”RichardThakor是卡尔森学院的金融专业助理教授,他与他在麻省理工学院(MIT)的博士生导师NittaiBergman(目前就职于特拉维夫大学伯格拉斯经济学院)和Rajkamal Iyer(目前就职于伦敦帝国学院商学院)共同撰写了论文《政府注资的影响:1980年代农场债务危机》,最近发表在《金融研究评论》。
这篇论文的想法源自“金融学中的一个经典的、颇具影响力的观点。但据我们所知,这个观点还没有得到全面验证。”对于金融加速器这一观点,Thakor的描述是:“当金融摩擦频繁时,例如资金或信贷困难,包括经济低迷在内的所有形式的冲击都会不断放大。”
各类金融摩擦对小企业的影响、以及政府资助项目对金融摩擦的影响,是Thakor一直感兴趣的课题。为了理解金融加速器的实效,他和论文合著者抛开政府的消费券,转而研究一个与众不同且令人惊讶的问题:1980年代农场债务危机期间,温度变化对爱荷华州玉米产量的影响。
为什么?“债务危机、金融危机、或疫情期间的政府补贴,往往只发放给深陷危机中的企业。所以,如果只关注这些项目,我们很难判断它们的实际效果。”Thakor表示,在危机中,“政府的现金补贴可能带来积极效果,但我们很难确定。”
通过研究温度对玉米产量的影响,“我们分析了完全随机的现金流冲击,他们不是政府针对性政策或控制的结果。”Thakor表示,这项研究“可以直接追踪现金流冲击的影响,从而明确这些措施在金融危机时期会产生什么效果。”
在20世纪80年代的农场危机中,每反常炎热一天,年产量可能减少约3%,严重降低农场收入。Thakor表示:“在研究其他课题时,我们并未发现政府资助对收入的任何影响。”在非危机时期,农民和农业企业可以通过借贷来缓解金融冲击。但是在危机时期,资金紧张、银行不放贷,金融冲击的影响通过经济而“加速”了。
除非政府介入。Thakor发现,在危机时期,政府每拨付1美元,就会带来1.6美元的额外收入。现金资助“使金融部门的能力增强”,Thakor说。“例如,银行倒闭的概率降低了。”总而言之,“在危机时期向公司和个人拨付资金的项目,确实有正面效果。”
鉴于当前疫情对经济的冲击,这一结论“非常适合当下”,Thaker说。