Suchergebnisse

In this paper we adopt a Bayesian approach towards the estimation of the monetary policy preference parameters in a general equilibrium framework. We start from the model presented by Smets and Wouters (2003) for the euro area where, in the original set up, monetary policy behaviour is described by an empirical Taylor rule. We abandon this way of representing monetary policy behaviour and assume, instead, that monetary policy authorities optimize an intertemporal quadratic loss function under commitment. We consider two alternative specifications for the loss function. The first specification includes inflation, output gap and difference in the interest rate as target variables. The second loss function includes an additional wage inflation target. The weights assigned to the target variables in the loss functions, i.e. the preferences of monetary policy, are estimated jointly with the structural parameters in the model. The results imply that inflation variability remains the main concern of optimal monetary policy. In addition, interest rate smoothing and the output gap appear to be, to a lesser extent, important target variables as well. Comparing the marginal likelihood of the original Smets and Wouters (2003) model to our specification with optimal monetary policy indicates that the latter performs only slightly worse. Since we are faced with the time-inconsistency problem under commitment, we initialize our estimates by considering a presample period of 40 quarters. This allows us to approach, empirically, the timeless perspective framework.

We use the two-country model of the euro area developed by Quint and Rabanal (2014) to study policymaking in the European Monetary Union (EMU). In particular, we focus on strategic interactions: 1) between monetary policy and a common macroprudential authority, and; 2) between an EMU-level monetary authority and regional macroprudential authorities. In the first case, price stability and financial stability are pursued at the EMU level, while in the second case each macroprudential authority adopts region-specific objectives. We compare cooperative equilibria in the simultaneous-move and leadership solutions, each obtained assuming policy discretion. Further, we assess the effects on policy performance of assigning shared objectives across policymakers and of altering the level of importance attached to various policy objectives.

We estimate the Smets and Wouters (2007) model augmented with the Gertler and Karadi (2011) financial intermediation sector on US data by using real and financial observables. Given the framework of the estimated model, we address the question whether and how standard monetary policy should interact with macroprudential policy in order to safeguard real and financial stability. For this purpose, monetary policy is described by a flexible inflation targeting regime using the interest rate as instrument, while the macroprudential regulator adopts a tax/subsidy on bank capital in a countercyclical manner in order to stabilize nominal credit growth and the output gap. We look at the gains from coordination between the central bank and the macroprudential regulator under alternative assumptions regarding the degree of importance assigned to output gap fluctuations in the macroprudential mandate. The results suggest that there can be considerable gains from coordination if the macroprudential regulator has been assigned a sufficiently high weight on output gap stabilization, i.e. the common objective with monetary policy. If, on the other hand, the main focus of the macroprudential mandate is on credit growth, the macroprudential policy maker can reach better outcomes, while the central bank does worse, in the absence of coordination. Therefore, whether and to which extent monetary policy gains from coordination with the macroprudential regulator depends on the relative weight assigned to output fluctuations in the macroprudential mandate. Our counterfactual analysis further confirms the effectiveness of the countercyclical macroprudential tax/subsidy in containing the amplification effects triggered by a financial shock, and suggests that having a macroprudential regulatory tool at work could have successfully avoided the massive drop in credit such as the one observed at the onset of the Great Recession.

There are two main approaches to modelling monetary policy; simple instrument rules and optimal policy. We propose an alternative that combines the two by extending the loss function with a term penalizing deviations from a simple rule. We analyze the properties of the modified loss function by considering three different models for the US economy. The choice of the weight on the simple rule determines the trade-off between optimality and robustness. We show that placing some weight on a simple Taylor-type rule in the loss function, one can prevent disastrous outcomes if the model is not a correct representation of the underlying economy.

We analyze the influence of the Taylor rule on US monetary policy by estimating the policy preferences of the Fed within a DSGE framework. The policy preferences are represented by a standard loss function, extended with a term that represents the degree of reluctance to letting the interest rate deviate from the Taylor rule. The empirical support for the presence of a Taylor rule term in the policy preferences is strong and robust to alternative specifications of the loss function. Analyzing the Fed's monetary policy in the period 2001-2006, we find no support for a decreased weight on the Taylor rule, contrary to what has been argued in the literature. The large deviations from the Taylor rule in this period are due to large, negative demand-side shocks, and represent optimal deviations for a given weight on the Taylor rule.