This article investigates the effect of bank lending frictions on employment outcomes. I construct a new data set that combines information on banking relationships and employment at 2,000 nonfinancial firms during the 2008–9 crisis. The article first verifies empirically the importance of banking relationships, which imply a cost to borrowers who switch lenders. I then use the dispersion in lender health following the Lehman crisis as a source of exogenous variation in the availability of credit to borrowers. I find that credit matters. Firms that had precrisis relationships with less healthy lenders had a lower likelihood of obtaining a loan following the Lehman bankruptcy, paid a higher interest rate if they did borrow, and reduced employment by more compared to precrisis clients of healthier lenders. Consistent with frictions deriving from asymmetric information, the effects vary by firm type. Lender health has an economically and statistically significant effect on employment at small and medium firms, but the data cannot reject the hypothesis of no effect at the largest or most transparent firms. Abstracting from general equilibrium effects, I find that the withdrawal of credit accounts for between one-third and one-half of the employment decline at small and medium firms in the sample in the year following the Lehman bankruptcy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 included $88 billion of aid to state governments administered through the Medicaid reimbursement process. We examine the effect of these transfers on states' employment. Because state fiscal relief outlays are endogenous to a state's economic environment, OLS results are biased downward. We address this problem by using a state's pre-recession Medicaid spending level to instrument for ARRA state fiscal relief. In our preferred specification, a state's receipt of a marginal $100,000 in Medicaid outlays results in an additional 3.8 job-years, 3.2 of which are outside the government, health, and education sectors. (JEL H75, I18, I38, R23)

A geographic cross-sectional fiscal spending multiplier measures the effect of an increase in spending in one region of a monetary union. Empirical studies of such multipliers have proliferated. I review this research and what the evidence implies for national multipliers. Based on an updated analysis of the ARRA and a survey of empirical studies, my preferred point estimate for a cross-sectional multiplier is 1.8. The paper also discusses conditions under which the cross-sectional multiplier provides a rough lower bound for the national, no-monetary-policy-response multiplier. Putting these elements together, the cross-sectional evidence suggests a national no-monetary-policy-response multiplier of 1.7 or above. (JEL E32, E52, E62, H54, H76, R53)

Monetary policy affects the real economy in part through its effects on financial institutions. High-frequency event studies show that the introduction of unconventional monetary policy in the winter of 2008-09 had a strong, beneficial impact on banks and, especially, on life insurance companies. I interpret the positive effects on life insurers as evidence that expansionary policy helped to recapitalize the sector by raising the value of legacy assets. Expansionary policy had small positive or neutral effects on banks and life insurers during the period 2010-13. The interaction of low nominal interest rates and administrative costs forced money market funds to waive fees, producing a possible incentive to reach for yield to reduce waivers. I show that money market funds with higher costs did reach for higher returns in 2009-11, but not thereafter. Some private defined-benefit pension funds increased their risk taking beginning in 2009, but again such behavior largely dissipated by 2012. In sum, unconventional monetary policy helped to stabilize some sectors and provoked modest additional risk taking in others. I do not find evidence that riskiness of the financial institutions studied fomented a trade-off between expansionary policy and financial stability at the end of 2013. 5. Testimony of Chairman Ben S. Bernanke before the Joint Economic Committee,

We analyze a unique episode in the history of monetary economics, the 2016 Indian "demonetization." This policy made 86% of cash in circulation illegal tender overnight, with new notes gradually introduced over the next several months. We present a model of demonetization where agents hold cash both to satisfy a cash-in-advance constraint and for tax evasion purposes. We test the predictions of the model in the cross-section of Indian districts using several novel data sets including: the geographic distribution of demonetized and new notes for causal inference; nightlight activity and employment surveys to measure economic activity including in the informal sector; debit/credit cards and e-wallet transactions data; and banking data on deposit and credit growth. Districts experiencing more severe demonetization had relative reductions in economic activity, faster adoption of alternative payment technologies, and lower bank credit growth. The cross-sectional responses cumulate to a contraction in employment and nightlights-based output due to demonetization of 2 p.p. and of bank credit of 2 p.p. in 2016Q4 relative to their counterfactual paths, effects which dissipate over the next few months. These cumulated effects provide a lower bound for the aggregate effects of demonetization. Our analysis rejects money non-neutrality using a large scale natural experiment, something that is yet rare in the vast literature on the effects of monetary policy.

We document the importance of covenant violations in transmitting bank health to non-financial firms using a new supervisory data set of bank loans. Roughly one-third of loans in our data breach a covenant during the 2008-09 period, providing lenders the opportunity to force a renegotiation of loan terms or to accelerate repayment of otherwise long-term credit. Lenders in worse health are more likely to force a reduction in the loan commitment following a violation. The reduction in credit to borrowers who violate a covenant accounts for the majority of the cross-sectional variation in credit supply during the 2008-09 crisis.

We analyze a unique episode in the history of monetary economics, the 2016 Indian “demonetization.” This policy made 86% of cash in circulation illegal tender overnight, with new notes gradually introduced over the next several months. We present a model of demonetization where agents hold cash both to satisfy a cash-in-advance constraint and for tax evasion purposes. We test the predictions of the model in the cross-section of Indian districts using several novel data sets including: the geographic distribution of demonetized and new notes for causal inference; night light activity and employment surveys to measure economic activity including in the informal sector; debit/credit cards and e-wallet transactions data; and banking data on deposit and credit growth. Districts experiencing more severe demonetization had relative reductions in economic activity, faster adoption of alternative payment technologies, and lower bank credit growth. The cross-sectional responses cumulate to a contraction in aggregate employment and night lights–based output due to the the cash shortage of at least 2 percentage points and of bank credit of 2 percentage points in 2016Q4 relative to their counterfactual paths, effects that dissipate over the next few months. Our analysis rejects monetary neutrality using a large-scale natural experiment, something that is still rare in the vast literature on the effects of monetary policy.

anonymous referees, and numerous seminar participants. Much of this paper was written while Gabriel Chodorow-Reich was visiting the Julis-Rabinowitz Center at Princeton University. Loukas Karabarbounis thanks Chicago Booth for summer financial support. The Appendix and dataset that accompany this paper are available at the authors' webpages. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the Federal Reserve System, or the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.