How Does Seigniorage Function as a Source of Government Revenue?

Seigniorage functions as a source of government revenue by allowing governments to profit from their monopoly power to create money, earning the difference between the face value of currency and the cost of producing it. When a government issues $100 in currency that costs only $0.15 to print, it gains $99.85 in seigniorage revenue. In modern monetary systems, seigniorage operates primarily through central banks creating new money to purchase government bonds or other assets, with the interest earnings and capital gains flowing back to the treasury as government revenue. This revenue source is particularly significant because it does not require explicit taxation, though excessive money creation leads to inflation that acts as an implicit tax on money holders. Seigniorage typically generates between 0.5% to 2% of GDP in developed economies but can reach much higher levels in developing countries or during periods of high inflation (Cukierman et al., 1992).

Understanding Seigniorage: Definition and Mechanisms

What Is Seigniorage and How Did It Originate?

Seigniorage originally referred to the profit medieval lords (seigneurs) earned from their exclusive right to mint coins, calculated as the difference between the face value of coins and the cost of metal and production. Historically, rulers would collect precious metals from citizens, mint them into coins with official stamps certifying their value, and return slightly less metal than received, keeping the difference as revenue. This practice represented one of the earliest forms of government revenue generation beyond direct taxation and tribute collection. The term has evolved to encompass all profits governments earn from currency creation, whether through physical cash production or electronic money creation in modern banking systems. Understanding seigniorage’s historical roots helps illuminate why governments universally claim monopoly powers over currency issuance and why counterfeiting is severely punished (Goodhart, 1998).

In contemporary monetary systems, seigniorage operates through more sophisticated mechanisms than simple coin production profits. Modern seigniorage primarily flows through central bank operations where monetary authorities create new money by purchasing government securities or other assets. When the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, or other central banks conduct open market operations by buying government bonds with newly created reserves, they generate interest income from these assets. This interest revenue, after deducting operational expenses, returns to the treasury as seigniorage income. Additionally, seigniorage includes the opportunity cost of holding non-interest-bearing currency; when individuals and businesses hold cash rather than interest-bearing assets, the government effectively borrows at zero interest. This implicit subsidy represents significant revenue for governments, particularly in economies with large cash economies or where currency serves as a store of value beyond national borders (Klein & Neumann, 1990).

What Are the Different Types of Seigniorage?

Economists distinguish between several types of seigniorage based on measurement approaches and economic effects. Monetary seigniorage represents the direct profit from producing currency at costs below face value, calculated simply as the difference between currency face value and production costs. For physical currency, this calculation is straightforward: if producing a $100 bill costs $0.15, monetary seigniorage equals $99.85 per note. Opportunity cost seigniorage measures the interest savings governments achieve by issuing non-interest-bearing currency instead of interest-bearing debt. If the government could otherwise borrow at 3% annually, each $100 in circulating currency saves $3 per year in interest payments. This opportunity cost approach reveals seigniorage as an ongoing revenue stream rather than a one-time gain from currency issuance (Fischer, 1982).

Fiscal seigniorage focuses on actual revenue flows to government treasuries, measured as central bank profits remitted to governments after accounting for operational costs and reserve requirements. This measure captures the practical budgetary impact of seigniorage rather than theoretical calculations. Inflation tax represents another seigniorage concept, measuring the real value transfer from money holders to governments when inflation erodes purchasing power. When a government increases money supply by 10% causing 10% inflation, it effectively confiscates 10% of real money balances from currency holders. This inflation tax operates as an implicit form of taxation that doesn’t require legislative approval, making it politically attractive but economically costly. Some economists also distinguish between anticipated and unanticipated seigniorage, recognizing that expected inflation gets incorporated into nominal interest rates while unexpected inflation generates windfall gains for governments at the expense of creditors and money holders (Drazen, 1985).

Seigniorage Revenue Generation Mechanisms

How Do Governments Generate Revenue Through Currency Creation?

Governments generate revenue through currency creation via central bank operations that expand monetary base while acquiring income-producing assets. When central banks conduct expansionary monetary policy by purchasing government bonds, they credit banks with newly created reserves that increase money supply. The government bonds acquired through these purchases generate interest income for the central bank, which remits profits to the treasury after covering operational expenses. In the United States, the Federal Reserve typically returns 90% to 95% of its net earnings to the Treasury, generating approximately $50 billion to $100 billion annually in seigniorage revenue depending on interest rates and balance sheet size. This revenue mechanism allows governments to finance expenditures without raising taxes or issuing debt to private investors, though excessive reliance on money creation eventually triggers inflation (Hall & Sargent, 2011).

The revenue generation process differs between physical currency production and electronic money creation, though both contribute to seigniorage. Physical currency production involves relatively modest direct profits; the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces approximately 7 billion notes annually at costs around $0.07 to $0.15 per note, generating a few billion dollars in direct seigniorage. However, the ongoing opportunity cost of outstanding currency represents much larger revenue. The approximately $2.3 trillion in U.S. currency circulating globally saves the government roughly $70 billion annually in interest payments at 3% rates compared to issuing equivalent debt. Electronic money creation through reserve expansion generates even larger revenue flows through the interest earnings on assets purchased during quantitative easing or normal monetary operations. Between 2008 and 2020, Federal Reserve asset purchases under quantitative easing programs generated over $800 billion in cumulative seigniorage revenue remitted to the Treasury, demonstrating the significant fiscal implications of monetary policy operations (Carpenter et al., 2015).

What Determines the Amount of Seigniorage a Government Can Collect?

The amount of seigniorage a government can collect depends on several key factors including money demand, inflation expectations, financial system development, currency substitution possibilities, and institutional credibility. Money demand represents the crucial constraint on sustainable seigniorage; governments can only profit from money creation if people willingly hold the currency issued. Higher money demand, driven by economic growth, financial deepening, or currency use as a store of value, expands the base from which seigniorage can be extracted. Developing economies often experience rapidly growing money demand as financial systems develop and monetization increases, potentially generating substantial seigniorage revenue. Conversely, declining money demand due to financial innovation, electronic payment adoption, or currency substitution limits seigniorage potential (Cagan, 1956).

Inflation expectations critically affect sustainable seigniorage levels because anticipated inflation reduces real money demand through the inflation tax channel. When people expect high inflation, they minimize cash holdings and shift to inflation-protected assets, foreign currencies, or real goods, shrinking the base for seigniorage extraction. This creates a Laffer curve relationship where moderate money creation generates increasing revenue up to a point, beyond which faster money creation reduces revenue as declining money demand more than offsets increased issuance. Empirical estimates suggest that revenue-maximizing inflation rates range from 50% to 200% annually, though such high inflation imposes severe economic costs that far exceed seigniorage benefits. Sustainable seigniorage in well-managed economies typically comes from accommodating real economic growth and moderate inflation around 2% to 3%, generating steady revenue without triggering excessive inflation or currency substitution (Bruno & Fischer, 1990).

Economic Effects and Trade-offs of Seigniorage Financing

What Are the Advantages of Using Seigniorage as Government Revenue?

The primary advantages of using seigniorage as government revenue include minimal collection costs, political convenience, revenue generation during crises when tax collection fails, and automatic inflation adjustment. Unlike income taxes requiring extensive administrative infrastructure or consumption taxes necessitating complex enforcement mechanisms, seigniorage collection involves simply printing money or expanding central bank balance sheets with minimal administrative expense. This low collection cost makes seigniorage particularly valuable for developing countries with limited tax collection capacity. Political advantages emerge because money creation doesn’t require explicit legislative approval or visible tax increases that generate voter opposition. Governments can finance expenditures through money creation without facing the political costs of taxation, though inflation eventually imposes implicit costs on citizens (Mankiw, 1987).

Seigniorage provides crucial revenue flexibility during emergencies or crises when normal tax collection collapses or borrowing becomes impossible. During wartime, economic depressions, or sudden crises, governments often resort to money creation to finance essential expenditures when alternatives are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Historical evidence shows that seigniorage financed significant portions of government spending during major wars, hyperinflation episodes, and economic transitions. Additionally, seigniorage revenue automatically adjusts with economic growth and inflation, providing built-in fiscal flexibility. As economies grow and money demand increases, seigniorage revenue rises proportionally without requiring policy changes. This automatic adjustment contrasts with explicit taxes that require periodic rate adjustments to maintain real revenue levels. However, these advantages come with serious limitations and risks, particularly when governments exploit seigniorage excessively (Aizenman, 1992).

What Are the Disadvantages and Costs of Seigniorage Revenue?

The disadvantages and costs of seigniorage revenue include inflation generation, economic distortions, regressive distributional effects, financial instability risks, and credibility erosion. Excessive reliance on seigniorage inevitably produces inflation that imposes broad economic costs through reduced purchasing power, price uncertainty, resource misallocation, and transaction inefficiencies. Inflation acts as a particularly regressive tax because poor households hold larger portions of wealth as cash and lack access to inflation-hedging assets like real estate or foreign currency accounts. Studies demonstrate that inflation’s burden falls disproportionately on lower-income populations, making seigniorage one of the most regressive revenue sources available to governments. High inflation also creates economic distortions including shortened planning horizons, reduced investment, accelerated consumption, and increased resources devoted to inflation protection rather than productive activities (Easterly & Fischer, 2001).

Extreme seigniorage reliance can trigger hyperinflation that destroys monetary systems, devastates economies, and imposes catastrophic welfare losses. Historical hyperinflation episodes in Germany (1923), Hungary (1946), Zimbabwe (2008), and Venezuela (2016-2019) demonstrated how excessive money creation spirals into economic collapse, wiping out savings, disrupting production, and generating humanitarian crises. Even moderate inflation from seigniorage financing creates economic uncertainty that raises nominal interest rates, distorts tax systems through bracket creep and non-indexed provisions, and generates boom-bust cycles. Financial instability increases as inflation erodes real asset values, creates banking sector vulnerabilities, and triggers capital flight. Perhaps most seriously, excessive seigniorage use destroys central bank credibility and monetary policy effectiveness, making future stabilization efforts more difficult and costly. Once markets lose confidence in monetary authorities, restoring credibility requires prolonged tight monetary policies that impose substantial output losses (Sargent, 1982).

International and Comparative Perspectives on Seigniorage

How Does Seigniorage Vary Across Countries?

Seigniorage revenue varies dramatically across countries based on economic development levels, monetary policy regimes, inflation rates, and financial system characteristics. Developed economies with stable monetary frameworks typically generate modest seigniorage revenue equivalent to 0.5% to 2% of GDP, primarily through interest earnings on central bank assets and opportunity costs of currency issuance. The United States benefits from substantial international dollar demand, with estimates suggesting that 50% to 70% of U.S. currency circulates abroad, effectively providing interest-free loans from foreign holders. This “international currency premium” generates billions in additional seigniorage beyond domestic sources. The European Central Bank similarly benefits from euro use beyond the eurozone, while currencies like the Swiss franc serve as international stores of value that generate seigniorage premiums (Feige, 2003).

Developing and emerging market economies often rely more heavily on seigniorage, particularly countries with limited tax collection capacity, shallow bond markets, or restricted international borrowing access. Some developing countries generate 3% to 10% of GDP from seigniorage during normal periods and much higher proportions during crises or transition periods. Countries experiencing chronic fiscal deficits and limited borrowing access frequently resort to monetary financing, accepting higher inflation costs in exchange for essential revenue. However, excessive seigniorage reliance creates vicious cycles where inflation reduces tax revenue in real terms, forcing greater money creation that accelerates inflation further. Latin American countries during the 1980s debt crisis demonstrated these dynamics, with several nations generating 5% to 15% of GDP from seigniorage while experiencing triple-digit inflation. Cross-country evidence shows strong negative correlations between economic development and seigniorage dependence, as countries develop stronger institutions, deeper financial markets, and more effective tax systems (Click, 1998).

What Role Does Currency Substitution Play in Limiting Seigniorage?

Currency substitution plays a critical role in limiting seigniorage by allowing individuals to shift from domestic currency to foreign currencies or alternative stores of value when inflation becomes excessive. In highly dollarized economies like Ecuador, El Salvador, or Zimbabwe (before dollarization), currency substitution dramatically reduced governments’ ability to extract seigniorage because citizens held and transacted in U.S. dollars rather than domestic currency. When currency substitution occurs, money creation generates less real revenue because people immediately convert domestic currency to foreign assets, causing rapid depreciation without corresponding real resource transfers to the government. This dynamic creates practical limits on seigniorage exploitation even for governments willing to accept high inflation costs (Calvo & Végh, 1992).

The availability of currency substitution options disciplines monetary policy by imposing faster and more severe costs on excessive money creation. In closed economies or periods when capital controls prevented currency substitution, governments could sustain higher inflation rates before money demand collapsed completely. However, globalization, financial integration, and digital technologies have dramatically reduced currency substitution costs, strengthening market discipline on monetary policies. Cryptocurrencies and digital payment systems further expand substitution possibilities, potentially constraining future seigniorage collection even in developed economies. Some economists argue that currency competition through free currency substitution would eliminate excessive seigniorage by forcing monetary authorities to maintain stable currencies or lose market share to alternatives. However, most countries maintain legal tender laws and capital controls that limit substitution possibilities, preserving seigniorage revenue while constraining currency competition (Guidotti & Rodríguez, 1992).

Modern Monetary Policy and Seigniorage Implications

How Do Quantitative Easing Programs Affect Seigniorage Revenue?

Quantitative easing programs affect seigniorage revenue by dramatically expanding central bank balance sheets and interest-earning assets, generating substantial remittances to treasuries during expansionary phases but creating potential losses during normalization. Between 2008 and 2020, major central banks including the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan purchased trillions in government bonds and other securities through QE programs. These purchases generated significant seigniorage revenue as central banks earned interest on massive asset portfolios. The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded from approximately $900 billion in 2007 to over $8 trillion by 2022, with annual remittances to the Treasury reaching $80 billion to $120 billion during peak periods. This represented substantial fiscal transfers that effectively financed government borrowing at minimal cost (Reis, 2016).

However, QE programs create complex seigniorage dynamics during policy normalization when central banks must pay interest on reserves while holding long-term assets at fixed rates. As interest rates rise, central banks may face situations where interest paid on reserves exceeds interest earned on assets, generating operating losses that reduce or eliminate treasury remittances. The Federal Reserve experienced this dynamic in 2022-2023 when rate increases caused negative net income for the first time since 1915. These losses don’t require explicit fiscal transfers because central banks use deferred assets accounting, but they represent foregone seigniorage revenue and raise questions about fiscal implications of monetary policy operations. Some economists argue that QE represents intertemporal seigniorage transfers where governments receive revenue upfront through remittances but sacrifice future revenue during normalization. Understanding these dynamics becomes increasingly important as unconventional monetary policies become standard tools rather than emergency measures (Hall & Reis, 2015).

What Is the Future of Seigniorage in Digital Currency Era?

The future of seigniorage in the digital currency era faces uncertainty as central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), cryptocurrencies, and electronic payment innovations transform monetary systems. CBDCs could preserve or even enhance government seigniorage by offering digital alternatives to private payment systems while maintaining central bank control over money creation. If CBDCs replace significant cash holdings, governments might gain new data advantages and policy tools while maintaining traditional seigniorage flows from interest earnings on assets backing digital currency. However, CBDC design choices critically affect seigniorage implications; interest-bearing CBDCs would reduce seigniorage by eliminating the zero-interest advantage of currency, while non-interest-bearing CBDCs preserve traditional seigniorage structures. Central banks worldwide are carefully studying these trade-offs as they develop CBDC frameworks (Bordo & Levin, 2017).

Cryptocurrencies and private digital currencies pose potential challenges to government seigniorage monopolies by offering decentralized alternatives to state-issued money. If Bitcoin, stablecoins, or other private digital currencies gain widespread adoption as payment media or stores of value, they could reduce demand for government currency and corresponding seigniorage revenue. Some economists envision scenarios where currency competition eliminates excessive seigniorage by forcing governments to maintain sound monetary policies or lose market share to alternatives. However, regulatory responses including bans, restrictions, or taxation of private currencies suggest governments will vigorously defend seigniorage revenue sources. The most likely outcome involves coexistence where governments maintain dominant monetary roles through legal tender laws, regulatory frameworks, and network effects while private currencies serve niche functions. Seigniorage will likely remain significant though potentially constrained compared to historical levels as technological changes and competition limit governments’ ability to exploit money creation monopolies (Fernández-Villaverde & Sanches, 2019).

Policy Implications and Fiscal Sustainability

How Should Governments Balance Seigniorage Use With Other Revenue Sources?

Governments should balance seigniorage use with other revenue sources by treating it as a residual revenue tool rather than a primary fiscal instrument, maintaining monetary stability as the overriding objective while accepting modest seigniorage as a byproduct of appropriate monetary policy. Optimal fiscal policy relies primarily on transparent taxation systems that finance government expenditures through explicit taxes rather than implicit inflation taxes. This approach promotes economic efficiency, distributional fairness, and political accountability by making fiscal choices visible to citizens. Seigniorage should supplement tax revenue by accommodating money demand growth from economic expansion and providing emergency financing during crises when alternative revenue sources fail. Central bank independence and inflation targeting frameworks institutionalize this balance by preventing governments from exploiting seigniorage excessively while allowing modest revenue flows from normal monetary operations (Fischer & Easterly, 1990).

Empirical evidence supports moderate seigniorage combined with diversified revenue systems as optimal fiscal strategy. Countries maintaining inflation around 2% to 3% can generate sustainable seigniorage equivalent to 1% to 2% of GDP without significant economic costs. This revenue level provides useful fiscal flexibility while avoiding the distortions and instabilities associated with high inflation. In contrast, countries relying on seigniorage for more than 5% of revenue typically experience accelerating inflation, financial instability, and eventual economic crises that impose costs far exceeding short-term revenue benefits. International institutions including the International Monetary Fund recommend that countries develop strong tax systems, maintain central bank independence, and limit monetary financing of deficits to preserve macroeconomic stability. For developing countries with limited tax capacity, gradual fiscal institution building represents better long-term strategy than continued seigniorage dependence that perpetuates inflation and underdevelopment (Végh, 1989).

What Are the Fiscal Sustainability Implications of Seigniorage Financing?

The fiscal sustainability implications of seigniorage financing involve complex trade-offs between short-term revenue needs and long-term economic stability, credibility, and institutional quality. Excessive seigniorage reliance indicates fiscal unsustainability because governments resort to money creation only when unable to finance expenditures through taxation or borrowing. This situation typically reflects fundamental fiscal imbalances including structural deficits, excessive spending, insufficient tax collection, or political dysfunction preventing necessary adjustments. While seigniorage provides temporary relief by financing deficits without explicit borrowing, it ultimately exacerbates sustainability problems by generating inflation that erodes tax revenue, discourages investment, and weakens economic growth. Historical evidence demonstrates that high-seigniorage periods almost always precede fiscal crises, currency collapses, or economic reform programs that impose severe adjustment costs (Sargent & Wallace, 1981).

Sustainable fiscal policy requires addressing underlying revenue-expenditure imbalances rather than relying on monetary financing as permanent solution. Countries achieving fiscal sustainability develop effective tax systems generating 20% to 40% of GDP in revenue, implement expenditure controls preventing systematic deficits, maintain market access for borrowing at reasonable interest rates, and preserve central bank independence preventing monetary financing of deficits. The transition from high-seigniorage to sustainable fiscal frameworks often requires comprehensive reforms including tax modernization, expenditure rationalization, institutional strengthening, and credibility-building through consistent policy implementation. While these transitions impose short-term costs, they generate long-term benefits through stabilized inflation, restored growth, and improved institutional quality. International experience shows that countries making successful transitions experience rapid economic acceleration as stability unlocks investment and productivity growth previously suppressed by inflation and uncertainty (Catão & Terrones, 2005).

Conclusion

Seigniorage functions as a government revenue source through the monopoly power to create money, generating profits from the difference between currency face value and production costs in physical form, or through central bank interest earnings and opportunity costs in modern monetary systems. While seigniorage offers advantages including low collection costs, political convenience, and crisis financing capability, excessive reliance generates inflation, economic distortions, regressive distributional effects, and fiscal sustainability risks. The optimal approach treats seigniorage as a supplementary revenue source arising from accommodating monetary policy rather than a primary fiscal tool, maintaining inflation stability as the paramount objective while accepting modest seigniorage as a byproduct of appropriate money creation.

Cross-country evidence demonstrates that sustainable seigniorage revenue ranges from 0.5% to 2% of GDP in well-managed economies, while higher levels indicate fiscal stress and institutional weaknesses requiring reform. The digital currency era presents both challenges and opportunities for seigniorage, with CBDCs potentially preserving government revenue monopolies while private cryptocurrencies threaten to introduce currency competition that constrains excessive money creation. Future fiscal and monetary policy frameworks must carefully balance legitimate seigniorage revenue with monetary stability imperatives, recognizing that short-term revenue temptations can generate long-term economic costs that far exceed fiscal benefits. Understanding seigniorage mechanics, constraints, and implications remains essential for sound macroeconomic policy in both developed and developing economies as monetary systems continue evolving in response to technological and institutional innovations.

References

Aizenman, J. (1992). Competitive externalities and the optimal seigniorage. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 24(1), 61-71.

Bordo, M. D., & Levin, A. T. (2017). Central bank digital currency and the future of monetary policy. NBER Working Paper No. 23711. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bruno, M., & Fischer, S. (1990). Seigniorage, operating rules, and the high inflation trap. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2), 353-374.

Cagan, P. (1956). The monetary dynamics of hyperinflation. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Studies in the quantity theory of money (pp. 25-117). University of Chicago Press.

Calvo, G. A., & Végh, C. A. (1992). Currency substitution in developing countries: An introduction. Revista de Análisis Económico, 7(1), 3-27.

Carpenter, S., Ihrig, J., Klee, E., Quinn, D., & Boote, A. (2015). The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and earnings: A primer and projections. International Journal of Central Banking, 11(2), 237-283.

Catão, L. A. V., & Terrones, M. E. (2005). Fiscal deficits and inflation. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(3), 529-554.

Click, R. W. (1998). Seigniorage in a cross-section of countries. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 30(2), 154-171.

Cukierman, A., Edwards, S., & Tabellini, G. (1992). Seigniorage and political instability. American Economic Review, 82(3), 537-555.

Drazen, A. (1985). A general measure of inflation tax revenues. Economics Letters, 17(4), 327-330.

Easterly, W., & Fischer, S. (2001). Inflation and the poor. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33(2), 160-178.

Feige, E. L. (2003). The dynamics of currency substitution, asset substitution and de facto dollarisation and euroisation in transition countries. Comparative Economic Studies, 45(3), 358-383.

Fernández-Villaverde, J., & Sanches, D. (2019). Can currency competition work? Journal of Monetary Economics, 106, 1-15.

Fischer, S. (1982). Seigniorage and the case for a national money. Journal of Political Economy, 90(2), 295-313.

Fischer, S., & Easterly, W. (1990). The economics of the government budget constraint. World Bank Research Observer, 5(2), 127-142.

Goodhart, C. A. E. (1998). The two concepts of money: Implications for the analysis of optimal currency areas. European Journal of Political Economy, 14(3), 407-432.

Guidotti, P. E., & Rodríguez, C. A. (1992). Dollarization in Latin America: Gresham’s law in reverse? International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 39(3), 518-544.

Hall, G. J., & Reis, R. (2015). Maintaining central-bank financial stability under new-style central banking. NBER Working Paper No. 21173. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hall, G. J., & Sargent, T. J. (2011). Interest rate risk and other determinants of post-WWII US government debt/GDP dynamics. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3(3), 192-214.

Klein, M., & Neumann, M. J. M. (1990). Seigniorage: What is it and who gets it? Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 126(2), 205-221.

Mankiw, N. G. (1987). The optimal collection of seigniorage: Theory and evidence. Journal of Monetary Economics, 20(2), 327-341.

Reis, R. (2016). Funding quantitative easing to target inflation. In Designing resilient monetary policy frameworks for the future (pp. 423-478). Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Sargent, T. J. (1982). The ends of four big inflations. In R. E. Hall (Ed.), Inflation: Causes and effects (pp. 41-98). University of Chicago Press.

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

Végh, C. A. (1989). Government spending and inflationary finance: A public finance approach. IMF Staff Papers, 36(3), 657-677.