The Optimal Inflation Buffer with a Zero Bound on Nominal Interest Rates

This paper characterizes the optimal inflation buffer consistent with a zero lower bound on nominal interest rates in a New Keynesian sticky-price model. It is shown that a purely forward-looking version of the model that abstracts from inflation inertia would significantly underestimate the inflation buffer. If the central bank follows the prescriptions of a welfare-theoretic objective, a larger buffer appears optimal than would be the case employing a traditional loss function. Taking also into account potential downward nominal rigidities in the price-setting behavior of firms appears not to impose significant further distortions on the economyinflation inertia, downward nominal rigidity, nonlinear policy, liquidity trap

Output gaps and monetary policy at low interest rates

Policymakers use various indicators of economic activity to assess economic conditions and set an appropriate stance for monetary policy. A key challenge for policymakers is finding indicators that give a clear and accurate signal of the state of the economy in real time—that is, at the time policy is actually made. Unfortunately, most indicators are initially estimated based on incomplete information and subsequently revised as more information becomes available. Moreover, some indicators are based on economic concepts that are not directly observable. ; Two indicators of economic activity often used to guide monetary policy are the output gap and the growth rate of real GDP. The output gap measures how far the economy is from its full employment or “potential” level. The output gap is a noisy signal of economic activity, however, because it depends on potential GDP, which is unobservable, and because it depends on estimates of GDP that are subject to revision. In contrast, estimates of GDP growth have the advantage of being observable—albeit with a lag. But these estimates are also subject to revision as more and better underlying information becomes available. Given the possibility that either of the indicators could give an inaccurate signal in real time, should one indicator be favored over the other as a guide for policy? ; Billi uses a standard model to compare economic performance under a policy that focuses on the output gap with one that focuses on GDP growth. He concludes that policymakers should usually focus on the output gap as an indicator of economic activity when policy rates are constrained by the ZLB. A policy that focuses on GDP growth can lead to more frequent encounters with the ZLB, which, in turn, lead to more volatility in output and inflation. In failing to account for the ZLB, previous research overstated the effectiveness of a policy that focuses on GDP growth.

Was monetary policy optimal during past deflation scares?

Countries around the world have fallen into one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression—a recession exacerbated by a severe financial crisis. Among the challenges that face monetary policymakers in such uncertain times is the danger that economies worldwide, including the United States, Japan, and the Euro Area, may enter a period of deflation, in which the prices of goods and services fall relentlessly. ; Policymakers and economists agree that sustained deflation would likely worsen the already fragile economic and financial environment. Past episodes of deflation in the wake of financial crises have included falling asset values, collapsing business and consumer confidence, credit crunches, widespread bankruptcies, long-lasting surges in unemployment, and other adverse conditions. Moreover, a deflationary environment has the potential to complicate the conduct of monetary policy. ; Policymakers have responded vigorously to the current crisis to prevent deflation. Some analysts warn that the U.S. policy response might be too proactive and cause a subsequent surge in inflation. At the same time, other analysts advise that the policy response in many other countries might not be active enough to fend off deflation. Of course, it is too early to judge the success of the different policies in the current episode. Still, it is possible to learn from past attempts by policymakers to fend off deflation under similar economic circumstances. ; Billi shows how Taylor rules can be used to evaluate monetary policy. He then compares actual policy during past deflation scares—in Japan in the 1990s and in the United States in the 2000s—with how policy would have been conducted using Taylor rules based, to the extent possible, on data available at the time. The rule-based evidence suggests that Japan’s monetary policy response during its deflation scare might have been too weak, while the U.S. response might have been too strong.

Optimal monetary policy under commitment with a zero bound on nominal interest rates : [Version: May 7, 2004]

We determine optimal monetary policy under commitment in a forwardlooking New Keynesian model when nominal interest rates are bounded below by zero. The lower bound represents an occasionally binding constraint that causes the model and optimal policy to be nonlinear. A calibration to the U.S. economy suggests that policy should reduce nominal interest rates more aggressively than suggested by a model without lower bound. Rational agents anticipate the possibility of reaching the lower bound in the future and this amplifies the effects of adverse shocks well before the bound is reached. While the empirical magnitude of U.S. mark-up shocks seems too small to entail zero nominal interest rates, shocks affecting the natural real interest rate plausibly lead to a binding lower bound. Under optimal policy, however, this occurs quite infrequently and does not require targeting a positive average rate of inflation. Interestingly, the presence of binding real rate shocks alters the policy response to (non-binding) mark-up shocks. JEL Klassifikation: C63, E31, E52

Monetary conservatism and fiscal policy

Does an inflation conservative central bank à la Rogoff (1985) remain desirable in a setting with endogenous fiscal policy? To provide an answer we study monetary and fiscal policy games without commitment in a dynamic stochastic sticky price economy with monopolistic distortions. Monetary policy determines nominal interest rates and fiscal policy provides public goods generating private utility. We find that lack of fiscal commitment gives rise to excessive public spending. The optimal inflation rate internalizing this distortion is positive, but lack of monetary commitment robustly generates too much inflation. A conservative monetary authority thus remains desirable. Exclusive focus on inflation by the central bank recoups large part - in some cases all - of the steady state welfare losses associated with lack of monetary and fiscal commitment. An inflation conservative central bank tends to improve also the conduct of stabilization policy. JEL Classification: E52, E62, E63conservative monetary policy, discretionary policy, sequential non-cooperative policy games, time consistent policy

Optimal monetary policy under commitment with a zero bound on nominal interest rates

We determine optimal monetary policy under commitment in a forward-looking New Keynesian model when nominal interest rates are bounded below by zero. The lower bound represents an occasionally binding constraint that causes the model and optimal policy to be nonlinear. A calibration to the U.S. economy suggests that policy should reduce nominal interest rates more aggressively than suggested by a model without lower bound. Rational agents anticipate the possibility of reaching the lower bound in the future and this amplifies the effects of adverse shocks well before the bound is reached. While the empirical magnitude of U.S. mark-up shocks seems too small to entail zero nominal interest rates, shocks affecting the natural real interest rate plausibly lead to a binding lower bound. Under optimal policy, however, this occurs quite infrequently and does not imply positive average inflation rates in equilibrium. Interestingly, the presence of binding real rate shocks alters the policy response to (non-binding) mark-up shocksMonetary policy ; Keynesian economics ; Liquidity (Economics) ; Interest rates

Distortionary fiscal policy and monetary policy goals

We study interactions between monetary policy, which sets nominal interest rates, and fiscal policy, which levies distortionary income taxes to finance public goods, in a standard, sticky-price economy with monopolistic competition. Policymakers? inability to commit in advance to future policies gives rise to excessive inflation and excessive public spending, resulting in welfare losses equivalent to several percent of consumption each period. We show how appointing a conservative monetary authority, which dislikes inflation more than society does, can considerably reduce these welfare losses and that optimally the monetary authority is predominantly concerned about inflation. Full conservatism, i.e., exclusive concern about inflation, entirely eliminates the welfare losses from discretionary monetary and fiscal policymaking, provided monetary policy is determined after fiscal policy each period. Full conservatism, however, is severely suboptimal when monetary policy is determined simultaneously with fiscal policy or before fiscal policy each period.

Optimal monetary policy under discretion with a zero bound on nominal interest rates

We determine optimal discretionary monetary policy in a New-Keynesian model when nominal interest rates are bounded below by zero. Nominal interest rates should be lowered faster in response to adverse shocks than in the case without bound. Such ‘preemptive easing’ is optimal because expectations of a possibly binding bound in the future amplify the effects of adverse shocks. Calibrating the model to the U.S. economy we ?nd the easing effect to be quantitatively important. Moreover, signi?cant welfare losses. Losses increase further when in?ation is partly determined by lagged in?ation in the Phillips curve. Targeting positive in?ation rates reduces the frequency of a binding lower bound, but tends to reduce welfare compared to a target rate of zero. The welfare gains from policy commitment, however, appear signi?cant and are much larger than in the case without lower bound. JEL Classification: C63 , E31 , E52liquidity trap, nonlinear policy, zero lower bound

Monetary conservatism and fiscal policy

Does an inflation conservative central bank à la Rogoff (1985) remain desirable in a setting with endogenous fiscal policy? To provide an answer we study monetary and fiscal policy games without commitment in a dynamic stochastic sticky price economy with monopolistic distortions. Monetary policy determines nominal interest rates and fiscal policy provides public goods generating private utility. We find that lack of fiscal commitment gives rise to excessive public spending. The optimal inflation rate internalizing this distortion is positive, but lack of monetary commitment robustly generates too much inflation. A conservative monetary authority thus remains desirable. When fiscal policy is determined before monetary policy each period, the monetary authority should focus exclusively on stabilizing inflation, as this eliminates the steady state biases associated with lack of monetary and fiscal commitment. It also leads to stabilization policy that is close to if not fully optimal.Money ; Monetary policy ; Fiscal policy

Discretionary monetary policy and the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates

Ignoring the existence of the zero bound on nominal interest rates one considerably understates the value of monetary commitment in New Keynesian models. A stochastic forward-looking model with an occasionally binding lower bound, calibrated to the U.S. economy, suggests that low values for the natural rate of interest lead to sizeable output losses and deflation under discretionary monetary policy. The fall in output and deflation are much larger than in the case with policy commitment and do not show up at all if the model abstracts from the existence of the lower bound. The welfare losses of discretionary policy increase even further when inflation is partly determined by lagged inflation in the Phillips curve. These results emerge because private sector expectations and the discretionary policy response to these expectations reinforce each other and cause the lower bound to be reached much earlier than under commitment.Monetary policy ; Liquidity (Economics) ; Interest rates