This thesis has been conducted through a qualitative research method in order to explain the concept of helicopter money and how to implement it in Sweden in line with present law. Milton Frideman was the first to coin the concept of helicopter money. His theory was that a permanent increase of the monetary base via money transferring to households would increase the aggregate demand and consequently result in an increase of the inflation level. Further Ben Bernanke has developed this theory to not only include transferring money to households but to the government in order to enable an increase in public spending and increase of inflation. Helicopter money is a form of direct monetary financing, which is illegal in Sweden today. There are ways to implement it though by doing an implicit transfer to the government through purchases of treasury bonds that are held in infinity. Helicopter money therefore requires cooperation between the government and the Riksbank. In order for helicopter money to be a sufficient tool the money that are being transferred needs to be consumed. Helicopter money has the unique quality that it’s irredeemable. Which result in an asymmetric treatment of the money, which mean that households never have to repay these money and therefore the consumption propensity rises. Helicopter money also weakens the currency, which results in an increase of inflation. Transferring money to the households would probably increase the inflation level but it also entails risks. If we on the other hand transfer the money to the government we can be absolutely certain that inflation will rise. The best way to implement helicopter money in order to achieve a higher inflation and at the same time taking present law into account is therefore to make an implicit transfer to the government. A good communication and explanation of the intentions are of great importance in order to retain the trust of the government and institutions. / Denna uppsats har genom en kvalitativ undersökning redogjort för begreppet helikopterpengar samt vilka förutsättningar som krävs för att implementera det i Sverige med hänsyn till rådande lagstiftning. Helikopterpengar bygger på en teori av Milton Friedman och innebär en permanent ökning av penningmängden via en transferering till hushållen vilket resulterar i en ökad aggregerad efterfråga och stigande inflation. Begreppet har utvecklats av bland annat Ben Bernanke som menar på att en transferering av helikopterpengarna likväl kan ske till staten för att öka offentliga utgifter och på det sättet driva upp inflationen. Helikopterpengar är en typ av direkt monetär finansiering som är förbjuden i Sverige med dagens lagstiftning. Det går dock att praktiskt tillämpa helikopterpengar genom att göra en indirekt transferering till staten genom köp av statsobligationer som hålls för evigt. Helikopterpengar kräver alltså ett samarbete mellan staten och Riksbanken. För att helikopterpengar ska få önskad effekt bygger det på att pengarna konsumeras. Helikopterpengar innebär en asymmetrisk behandling av pengarna vilket gör att hushållen inte behöver betala tillbaka pengarna i framtiden och konsumtionsbenägenheten ökar. Helikopterpengar urholkar kronans värde vilket leder till en svagare valuta som i sin tur också bidrar till en ökad inflation. En transferering till hushållen skulle med stor sannolikhet ge effekt på inflationsnivån men medför även risker. Genomförs däremot en transferering till staten kommer inflationen med säkerhet att öka då staten kan se till att varje krona spenderas. Bästa sättet att implementera helikopterpengar för att få störst effekt med hänsyn till rådande lagstiftning är alltså att göra en indirekt transferering till staten. Det är även viktigt att kommunicera intentionerna på ett pedagogiskt sätt för att marknaden ska behålla förtroendet för pengar och institutionerna.

This dissertation analyses the idea that parliament controls public money in parliamentary constitutional systems of government. That analysis proceeds through an historical and contemporary examination of the way legal practices distribute authority over public money between different institutions of government. The legislative and judicial practices concerning taxation, public expenditure, sovereign borrowing, and the government financing activities of central banks are selected for close attention. The contemporary analysis focuses on the design and operation of those legal practices in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia, in the context of the boom-bust-recovery economic conditions experienced between 2005 and 2016. The dissertation's ultimate claims are explanatory: that "parliamentary control" is a poor explanation of the distribution of financial authority in parliamentary systems of government and should be jettisoned in favour of an idea of "parliamentary ratification". An empirically engaged methodology is adopted throughout the dissertation and (historical and contemporary) public sector financial data enrich the legal analysis. The dissertation acknowledges the impact of, but remains agnostic between, different economic and political perspectives on fiscal discipline and public financial administration. The dissertation makes a number of original contributions. It provides a detailed examination of the historical development, legal operation and constitutional significance of annual appropriation legislation, and the legal regimes governing sovereign borrowing and monetary finance. It also analyses the way that law interacts with government behaviour in situations of economic emergencies (focusing on the Bank of England's public financing activities since 2008), and the institutional and doctrinal obstacles facing judicial involvement in disputes concerning public finance (focusing on the Australian judiciary's recent engagements with public expenditure legislation).