pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09663 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-30 · 💰 econ.EM · q-fin.GN· stat.ME

Recognition: no theorem link

JFR-rg: A New Macroeconomic Framework for High-Debt, Low-Growth Economies under Financial Repression

Hirofumi Wakimoto
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 23:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.EM q-fin.GNstat.ME
keywords financial repressiondebt sustainability corridornormalization ratchetcaptive financial systemjapan government debtr-g frameworkmacroeconomic model
0
0 comments X

The pith

The JFR-rg model shows that a financial repression bias can stabilize debt ratios in high-debt, low-growth economies like Japan.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops the Japanese Financial Repression r-g (JFR-rg) model to explain the stabilization of Japan's government debt, which exceeds 240 percent of GDP, while nominal GDP grows and unemployment stays low. It extends prior frameworks by including an observable financial repression bias, where inflation exceeds nominal rates, and a non-linear exchange-rate channel. The model introduces the Debt Sustainability Corridor in repression bias and growth space, the Normalization Ratchet showing path dependence from policy errors, and the Captive Financial System Parameter that captures institutional requirements for stability. A reader would care because it proposes that for similar economies, the benefits from repression could fund productivity investments if the institutional conditions hold.

Core claim

The JFR-rg model formalizes debt dynamics under financial repression by incorporating the bias epsilon_t equal to inflation minus nominal rates and non-linear exchange effects. It characterizes stability via the Debt Sustainability Corridor in (epsilon_t, g^n*_t) space, establishes the Normalization Ratchet as a theorem on persistent debt increases from temporary errors, and endogenizes preconditions through the Captive Financial System Parameter phi_t. Simulations demonstrate that aggressive rate hikes lead to worse debt outcomes in a Normalization Trap.

What carries the argument

The Captive Financial System Parameter (phi_t), which endogenizes the institutional precondition for stability in the JFR-rg framework.

Load-bearing premise

The captive financial system condition remains in place, enabling the government to suppress rates through domestic institutions.

What would settle it

Empirical observation of rising debt-to-GDP ratios in Japan following a period where nominal rates exceed inflation would contradict the model's stability predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09663 by Hirofumi Wakimoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Japan Comprehensive Macroeconomic Trends (2013–2021 Subperiod). Upper panel: Nominal GDP SAAR (FRED: JPNNGDP) vs. Real GDP Chained 2015 JPY (FRED: JPNRGDPEXP) with inflation gap shading. Lower panel: USD/JPY (FRED: DEXJPUS) vs. CPI YoY (FRED: JPNCPIALLMINMEI). Full-sample Pearson correlation ρ = 0.06. This subperiod panel is presented alongside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Japan Comprehensive Macroeconomic Trends (2013–Present, Full Panel). Upper panel: Nominal GDP SAAR vs. Real GDP. Lower panel: USD/JPY vs. CPI YoY. The widening “Inflation Gap” post-2022 reflects the inflationary episode that supercharges the JFR-rg debt compression mechanism. The rising co-movement of USD/JPY and CPI post-2022 is consistent with the approach of the nonlinear stability threshold e¯. Data so… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Japan Macroeconomic Trilemma Dashboard (2013–2021 Subperiod). Upper panel: Government Gross Debt/GDP (%, FRED: GGGDTAJPA188N, IMF definition; see footnote 2), Real GDP Growth YoY (%, FRED: JPNRGDPEXP), Policy Interest Rate (%, FRED: IRSTCI01JPM156N). Lower panel: USD/JPY (FRED: DEXJPUS) and Unemployment Rate (%, FRED: LRHUTTTTJPM156S). Data source: FRED API, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 24 [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Japan Macroeconomic Trilemma Dashboard (2013–Present, Full Panel). The upper panel shows the gross debt-to-GDP ratio declining from its 2020–2021 peak of ≈260–264% back to ≈236–240% by early 2026 without fiscal austerity—consistent with the operation of the JFR-rg Base Effect mechanism, though alternative explanations (including cyclical base effects and nominal GDP recovery) also contributed. The policy r… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Japan: Nominal Interest Rate (r n ) vs. Nominal Growth Rate (g n ), 2000–Present. Upper panel: 10-year JGB Yield (r n , FRED: IRLTLT01JPM156N) and Nominal GDP Growth YoY (g n , derived from FRED: JPNNGDP). Lower panel: r n − g n Spread with Safe Zone (r n < gn , green) and Danger Zone (r n > gn , red) shading. Data source: FRED API, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Japan Real-Time Financial Repression Monitor (2013–Present, Full Panel). Upper panel: Nominal 10Y JGB Yield (r n , FRED: IRLTLT01JPM156N) and Inflation Rate (π, Annual CPI YoY, FRED: FPCPITOTLZGJPN). Lower panel: Financial Repression Bias εt ≡ πt − r n t with Repression Zone (εt > 0, green) and Positive Real Rate Zone (εt < 0, red) shading. Note: CPI data are annual; monthly values use forward-filled annua… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Japan Real-Time Financial Repression Monitor (Monthly, 2013–2021 Subperiod). Upper panel: Nominal 10Y JGB Yield r n vs. CPI YoY π (monthly granularity). Lower panel: εt ≡ πt − r n t with zone shading. The brief positive real rate episodes (pink) represent periods when the repression mechanism is temporarily inactive. Data source: FRED API (IRLTLT01JPM156N, JPNCPIALLMINMEI), Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loui… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: provides a geometric summary of the Debt Sustainability Corridor, illustrating the DSF under two debt levels, the March 2026 operating point, the normalization trajectory across Scenarios B, B+, and C, and the corridor width |W2026|. 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Financial Repression Bias t = t r n t (%) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Str u ctu r al P ote ntial N o min al G r o wth g… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Debt Sustainability Corridor with Approximation Error Band. Setup identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalization Ratchet: Government Gross Debt/GDP Trajectories (2026–2035). Solid lines show permanent-shock scenarios (A, B, C). The dashed line (R2) undergoes a 2-year Scenario B shock (2027–28) then reverts fully to Scenario A parameters; the dotted line (R5) undergoes a 5-year shock (2027–31) then reverts. Despite full parameter reversion, both Ratchet paths remain above Scenario A over extended policy… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scenario C: Debt Trajectory Sensitivity to IOER Pass-Through Rate αpt. Left panel: Debt/GDP trajectories 2026–2030 for five values of αpt ∈ {0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%} (warm colors, top to bottom) and Scenario A (blue dashed). Right panel: b2030 as a function of αpt (bars), with the Scenario A upper bound (blue dashed) and the paper’s baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Proposition 2 Direct Test: φt suppresses the real JGB yield. Left: scatter of φt proxy vs. real JGB yield by regime (Free/QQE/YCC) with Model 2 partial-fit line. Center : βˆ φ across the three model specifications with 90% confidence intervals. Right: placebo test—βˆ φ for Japan, US, and Germany under the Model 2 specification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p087_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Proposition 3 Direct Test: Real Debt IRF. Left: baseline LP (e¯ = 10%) with 90% HAC confidence band. Center : sensitivity to choice of e¯; the e¯ = 15% specification yields negative coefficients throughout. Right: treatment episode timeline—the 2013–2015 episodes coincide with rapid nominal debt growth, explaining the positive baseline coefficients. K.3 Shock-Size-Controlled Pass-Through Comparison [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Shock-Size-Controlled Pass-Through Comparison. Left: scatter of monthly ∆e vs. ∆π by regime with OLS fit lines. Center : pass-through coefficient by |∆e| quantile bin and regime; YCC exceeds Free in the smallest-shock bins. Right: interacted OLS coefficients—the Captive add-on (βˆ interact = 0.031∗∗) is positive and significant after absorbing shock-size bin fixed effects. 89 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: YCC-Period-Isolated Insulation Test. Left: βˆ US point estimates with 90% confidence intervals by policy period. Right: scatter of Japan ρt vs. US 10Y yield by period; the red (YCC-active) regression line is steeper-negative than the blue (pre-QQE) line, reflecting that during YCC, rising US rates coincided with falling Japanese r n − g n rather than rising. 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p090_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p092_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: International Placebo—QE-Controlled. Left: βˆ captive before and after QE control. Japan’s value falls moderately (0.40 → 0.20) while remaining highly significant; European values are largely unchanged in magnitude but become statistically insignificant once QE is absorbed. Right: Wald p-values after QE control; only Japan remains below the 10% threshold. 93 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p093_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Regime-Conditioned LSTAR (∆e → ∆π). Top row: LSTAR fit and linear benchmark for the pre-QQE (Free) and YCC-Captive subperiods, together with the full-sample fit. The YCC-Captive panel shows a sharper step at cˆ = 3.5 JPY/USD. Bottom row (left): transition functions for the three fitted specifications. Bottom row (center): ∆R2 by regime—the YCC-Captive gain is 6.4× that of the Free period. Bottom row (righ… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Standard macroeconomic frameworks have correctly identified Japan's government debt - now exceeding 240% of GDP - as carrying substantial fiscal risk. Yet FRED data from 2013 to 2026 present an empirical record inviting a complementary perspective: debt ratios have stabilized, nominal GDP has exceeded 670 trillion yen (SAAR), and unemployment has remained near 2.6-2.7%. This paper formalizes these channels through the Japanese Financial Repression r-g (JFR-rg) model. Building on Blanchard (2019), the framework incorporates a financial repression bias (epsilon_t = pi_t - r^n_t, directly observable from FRED) and a non-linear exchange-rate channel. Three theoretical contributions extend the literature: (i) the Debt Sustainability Corridor, a characterization of stability in (epsilon_t, g^n*_t) space; (ii) the Normalization Ratchet, a path-dependence theorem showing that temporary policy errors generate persistently higher debt trajectories; and (iii) the Captive Financial System Parameter (phi_t), which endogenizes the institutional precondition for JFR-rg stability. Appendices H-L provide supporting empirical evidence (VAR, ARDL, Local Projections) showing the framework's claims are empirically disciplined and falsifiable. The core debt-dynamics propositions are anchored in the consolidated government budget identity (Layer L1), while selected propositions additionally rely on minimal structural assumptions; identification concerns apply only to the empirical Layer L2. Counterfactual simulations illustrate a Normalization Trap: aggressive rate hikes can produce counterproductive debt dynamics. For high-debt, low-growth economies sharing Japan's institutional characteristics, strategically deploying the resulting Repression Dividend into productivity-enhancing investment may represent a regime-contingent equilibrium possibility, conditional on the captive system condition being maintained.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the JFR-rg framework for high-debt, low-growth economies under financial repression, using Japan as the motivating case. Building on Blanchard (2019), it incorporates an observable financial repression bias ε_t = π_t - r^n_t and a non-linear exchange-rate channel. Core debt dynamics are anchored in the consolidated government budget identity (Layer L1). Three extensions are claimed: the Debt Sustainability Corridor in (ε_t, g^n*_t) space, the Normalization Ratchet path-dependence theorem, and the Captive Financial System Parameter φ_t that endogenizes institutional preconditions. Empirical support via VAR, ARDL, and Local Projections appears in appendices H-L (Layer L2), with counterfactual simulations illustrating a Normalization Trap.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper supplies a regime-contingent lens on debt stabilization that complements standard r-g analysis and generates falsifiable predictions for similar economies. The explicit use of FRED-observable ε_t and the policy counterfactuals on repression dividends are strengths that could inform applied work on high-debt settings conditional on captive financial systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Normalization Ratchet theorem] Normalization Ratchet theorem (abstract and Layer L1 derivation): the claimed hysteresis—that temporary policy errors produce persistently higher debt trajectories—appears to rest on φ_t remaining fixed. Because contribution (iii) presents φ_t as endogenous, an offsetting adjustment in φ_t following a rate hike could restore the original trajectory and eliminate the ratchet. The derivation must show whether the result survives endogenous φ_t or requires φ_t to be treated as exogenous.
  2. [Appendices H-L] Appendices H-L, Layer L2: identification in the VAR, ARDL, and Local Projections is flagged as carrying concerns. Without explicit discussion of how the non-linear exchange-rate channel and φ_t are identified separately from the budget-identity residuals, the empirical discipline claimed for the theoretical extensions is difficult to assess.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'minimal structural assumptions' for selected propositions; a short table or paragraph listing exactly which propositions rely on these assumptions versus the pure budget identity would improve transparency.
  2. [Notation] Notation for ε_t and g^n*_t should be introduced with an explicit equation reference in the main text before the corridor is characterized.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments on the manuscript. We address each major comment below, clarifying the assumptions underlying the theoretical results and committing to revisions that strengthen the empirical identification discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Normalization Ratchet theorem] Normalization Ratchet theorem (abstract and Layer L1 derivation): the claimed hysteresis—that temporary policy errors produce persistently higher debt trajectories—appears to rest on φ_t remaining fixed. Because contribution (iii) presents φ_t as endogenous, an offsetting adjustment in φ_t following a rate hike could restore the original trajectory and eliminate the ratchet. The derivation must show whether the result survives endogenous φ_t or requires φ_t to be treated as exogenous.

    Authors: The Normalization Ratchet theorem is derived in Layer L1 under the maintained assumption that φ_t is predetermined over the relevant policy horizon, consistent with the institutional inertia of captive financial systems. While contribution (iii) endogenizes φ_t to capture longer-run institutional change, the theorem focuses on short-run dynamics where φ_t does not adjust instantaneously. We will revise the manuscript to make this timing distinction explicit and add a short extension demonstrating that the ratchet result continues to hold when φ_t adjusts with a lag. This preserves the core contribution while directly addressing the referee's concern. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Appendices H-L] Appendices H-L, Layer L2: identification in the VAR, ARDL, and Local Projections is flagged as carrying concerns. Without explicit discussion of how the non-linear exchange-rate channel and φ_t are identified separately from the budget-identity residuals, the empirical discipline claimed for the theoretical extensions is difficult to assess.

    Authors: We agree that the identification strategy requires clearer exposition. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion in Appendices H-L to detail how the non-linear exchange-rate channel is identified via external instruments and how φ_t is proxied using institutional variables that are orthogonal to the consolidated budget residuals. This will make explicit the separation between the empirical layers and the theoretical claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; core claims anchored in standard budget identity

full rationale

The paper explicitly grounds its central debt-dynamics propositions in the consolidated government budget identity (Layer L1), a standard accounting relation that does not depend on the model's novel constructs such as phi_t or the Normalization Ratchet. These extensions are presented as theoretical additions relying on minimal structural assumptions rather than fitted parameters renamed as predictions or self-referential definitions. No equations or theorems are shown reducing by construction to the paper's own inputs, and the empirical appendices are described as providing falsifiable evidence. Self-citations, if any, are not load-bearing for the primary claims, leaving the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 3 invented entities

The model rests primarily on the standard consolidated government budget identity for its core propositions, with new parameters and constructs introduced to capture repression and institutional features whose validity depends on the paper's assumptions and empirical tests.

free parameters (1)
  • phi_t
    Captive Financial System Parameter introduced to endogenize the institutional precondition for JFR-rg stability.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Consolidated government budget identity (Layer L1)
    Core debt-dynamics propositions are anchored in this identity.
invented entities (3)
  • Debt Sustainability Corridor no independent evidence
    purpose: Characterization of stability in (epsilon_t, g^n*_t) space
    New theoretical construct for debt stability under repression bias.
  • Normalization Ratchet no independent evidence
    purpose: Path-dependence theorem showing temporary policy errors generate persistently higher debt trajectories
    New theorem on path dependence.
  • Captive Financial System Parameter (phi_t) no independent evidence
    purpose: Endogenizes the institutional precondition for JFR-rg stability
    New parameter capturing captive system condition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5632 in / 1795 out tokens · 44573 ms · 2026-05-13T23:57:31.616349+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. JFR-rg Part II: Dynamic Extensions, Time Constraints, and Investment Design in High-Debt, Low-Growth Economies

    econ.GN 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The JFR-rg regime logic is extended in closed form through six mechanisms and a minimal equilibrium closure that endogenizes sovereign risk premiums via domestic demand complementarity in high-debt economies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Andrews, D. W. K. (1993). Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point.Econometrica, 61(4), 821–856

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Bai, J., & Perron, P. (1998). Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes.Econometrica, 66(1), 47–78

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    S., & Reinhart, V

    Bernanke, B. S., & Reinhart, V. R. (2004). Conducting Monetary Policy at Very Low Short-Term Interest Rates.American Economic Review, 94(2), 85–90

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Blanchard, O. (2019). Public Debt and Low Interest Rates.American Economic Review, 109(4), 1197–1229

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    (2024a, March 19)

    Bank of Japan. (2024a, March 19). Changes in the Monetary Policy Framework. Bank of Japan. Retrieved from https://www.boj.or.jp/en/mopo/mpmdeci/mpr_2024/k240319a.pdf

    work page

  6. [6]

    (2024b, December 19)

    Bank of Japan. (2024b, December 19). Statement on Monetary Policy. Bank of Japan. Retrieved fromhttps://www.boj.or.jp/en/mopo/mpmdeci/mpr_2024/k241219a.pdf

    work page

  7. [7]

    Calvo, G. A. (1998). Capital Flows and Capital-Market Crises: The Simple Economics of Sudden Stops.Journal of Applied Economics, 1(1), 35–54

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    (2025).Annual Report on the Japanese Economy and Public Finance 2025

    Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2025).Annual Report on the Japanese Economy and Public Finance 2025. Tokyo: Cabinet Office. Retrieved from https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai3/whitepaper-e.html

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    B., & Krugman, P

    Eggertsson, G. B., & Krugman, P. (2012). Debt, deleveraging, and the liquidity trap: A Fisher-Minsky-Koo approach.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1469–1513

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2026). Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). Series: JPNNGDP, JPNRGDPEXP, DEXJPUS, JPNCPIALLMINMEI, IRLTLT01JPM156N, IRSTCI01JPM156N, GGGDTAJPA188N, LRHUTTTTJPM156S. Retrieved March 2026 fromhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Haba, S., Izawa, K., Kishaba, Y., Takahashi, Y., & Yoneyama, S. (2025). Measuring Policy Effects since the Introduction of Quantitative and Qualitative Monetary Easing (QQE): An Analysis Using the Macroeconomic Model Q-JEM.Bank of Japan Working Paper Series, No. 25-E-2. Bank of Japan. Retrieved from https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2025/wp25e02.htm

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference.Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345–368

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Holston, K., Laubach, T., & Williams, J. C. (2017). Measuring the natural rate of interest: International trends and determinants.Journal of International Economics, 108(S1), S59–S75. 64 JFR-rg Model: Financial Repression and Debt Dynamics in Japan

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Hoshi, T., & Ito, T. (2014). Defying gravity: Can Japanese sovereign debt continue to increase without a crisis?Economic Policy, 29(77), 5–44

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    International Monetary Fund. (2024a). Japan: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Japan.IMF Country Report No. 24/118. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. Retrieved fromhttps: //www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2024/05/13/Japan-2024-Article-I V-Consultation-Press-Release-Staf...

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    International Monetary Fund. (2024b). Japan: Selected Issues.IMF Country Report No. 24/119. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2024/05/13/Japan-Selecte d-Issues-548849

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Jordà, Ò. (2005). Estimation and Inference of Impulse Responses by Local Projections. American Economic Review, 95(1), 161–182

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Joyce, M., Lasaosa, A., Stevens, I., & Tong, M. (2011). The financial market impact of quantitative easing in the United Kingdom.International Journal of Central Banking, 7(3), 113–161

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Koo, R. C. (2003).Balance Sheet Recession: Japan’s Struggle with Uncharted Economics and Its Global Implications. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Koo, R. C. (2011). The world in balance sheet recession: causes, cure, and politics. real-world economics review, issue no. 58, 19–37. Retrieved from https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Leeper, E. M. (1991). Equilibria under ‘active’ and ‘passive’ monetary and fiscal policies.Journal of Monetary Economics, 27(1), 129–147

    work page 1991

  22. [22]

    McKinnon, R. I. (1973).Money and Capital in Economic Development. Brookings Institution

    work page 1973

  23. [23]

    R., & Sergeyev, D

    Mehrotra, N. R., & Sergeyev, D. (2021). Debt sustainability in a low interest rate world.Journal of Monetary Economics, 124(Supplement), S1–S18

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Mikayama, M., Imahori, T., Ohno, T., Yoneta, Y., & Ueda, J. (2023). Top income shares in Japan from the survey and tax data in 2014 and 2019: Following the Distributional National Accounts Guidelines.Policy Research Institute (Ministry of Finance, Japan) Discussion Paper Series, No. 23A-04. Retrieved from https://www.mof.go.jp/pri/research/discussion_pape...

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Mundell, R. A. (1963). Capital mobility and stabilization policy under fixed and flexible exchange rates.Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29(4), 475–485. 65 JFR-rg Model: Financial Repression and Debt Dynamics in Japan

    work page 1963

  26. [26]

    Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (1995). Exchange rate dynamics redux.Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 624–660

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R

    Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships.Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326

    work page 2001

  28. [28]

    M., & Sbrancia, M

    Reinhart, C. M., & Sbrancia, M. B. (2015). The liquidation of government debt. Economic Policy, 30(82), 291–333

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    J., & Wallace, N

    Sargent, T. J., & Wallace, N. (1981). Some unpleasant monetarist arithmetic.Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 5(3), 1–17

    work page 1981

  30. [30]

    Shaw, E. S. (1973).Financial Deepening in Economic Development. Oxford University Press

    work page 1973

  31. [31]

    Sims, C. A. (1994). A simple model for study of the determination of the price level and the interaction of monetary and fiscal policy.Economic Theory, 4(3), 381–399

    work page 1994

  32. [32]

    (2015).Between Debt and the Devil: Money, Credit, and Fixing Global Finance

    Turner, A. (2015).Between Debt and the Devil: Money, Credit, and Fixing Global Finance. Princeton University Press

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Woodford, M. (1994). Monetary policy and price level determinacy in a cash-in-advance economy.Economic Theory, 4(3), 345–380

    work page 1994

  34. [34]

    Woodford, M. (1995). Price-level determinacy without control of a monetary aggregate.Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 43(1), 1–46. 66 JFR-rg Model: Financial Repression and Debt Dynamics in Japan A. Derivation of the JFR-rg Debt Dynamics and Stability Condition Step 1.The nominal government budget constraint: Bt = (1 +r n t )B t−1 +D...

    work page 1995

  35. [35]

    This episode provides perhaps the clearest empirical illustration of the JFR-rg stabilizing channels in the sample, though alternative explanations—including global demand recovery and base effects—also contributed to the debt ratio decline. D. SAAR vs. Cabinet Office Aggregate: Reconciliation The SAAR series (FRED:JPNNGDP) and the Cabinet Office calendar...

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    The Normalization Trap (Proposition 4) is robust to the full range of literature-basedα estimates (Panel A) and isstructurally independentof(¯e, β)because the penalty term vanishes under yen appreciation (Panel D)

    work page

  37. [37]

    The near-miss character of Japan’s March 2026 operating point is robust: the 0.033 pp shortfall from strict stability is confirmed under both Panel B (εt perspective) and Panel C (growth perspective)

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    This provides a concrete empirical anchor for future re- search on the sustainability of Japan’s financial repression equilibrium

    The Repression Imperative (Proposition 2) is quantified: demographic decline that re- ducesg n∗ t by 0.5 pp requires a compensating increase inε t of the same magnitude to maintain the debt trajectory. This provides a concrete empirical anchor for future re- search on the sustainability of Japan’s financial repression equilibrium

    work page

  39. [39]

    Inflation Gap

    Debt dynamics under large yen depreciation remain stable for all(¯e, β)combinations within economically plausible ranges (Panel D), with the critical thresholdβ∗(¯e)derived analytically in equation (13). Robustness to pass-through specification.The sensitivity of theπ t trajectory in Ta- ble 12 to the choice of pass-through coefficientγis assessed through...

    work page 2030

  40. [40]

    below-¯φ

    The subsequent tapering program has reducedφ t to≈0.88 as of March 2026 (BoJ Flow of Funds, December 2024). I.2 Identification Challenge The principal challenge in estimating¯φis the absence, within the 2013–2026 sample, of an episode in whichφt declined into a range plausibly associated with captive-system weakening and a sovereign risk premium emerged. ...

    work page 2026