Firm-specific investment, sticky prices and the Taylor principle

According to the Taylor principle a central bank should adjust the nominal interest rate by more than one-for-one in response to changes in current inflation. Most of the existing literature supports the view that by following this simple recommendation a central bank can avoid being a source of unnecessary fluctuations in economic activity. The present paper shows that this conclusion is not robust with respect to the modelling of capital accumulation. We use our insights to discuss the desirability of alternative interest rate rules. Our results suggest a reinterpretation of monetary policy under Volcker and Greenspan: The empirically plausible characterization of monetary policy can explain the stabilization of macroeconomic outcomes observed in the early eighties for the US economy. The Taylor principle in itself cannot.Sticky prices, aggregate investment, monetary policy

Firm-specific capital, nominal rigidities, and the Taylor principle

In the presence of firm-specific capital the Taylor principle can generate multiple equilibria. Sveen and Weinke (2005b) obtain that result in the context of a Calvo-tyle sticky price model. One potential criticism is that the price stickiness which is needed for our theoretical result to be relevant from a practical point of view is somewhat to the high part of available empirical estimates. In the present paper we show that if nominal wages are not fully flexible (which is an uncontroversial empirical fact) then the Taylor principle fails already for some minor degree of price stickiness. We use our model to explain the consequences of both nominal rigidities for the desirability of alternative interest rate rules.Nominal Rigidities, Aggregate Investment, Monetary Policy.

Is lumpy investment really irrelevant for the business cycle?

New-Keynesian (NK) models can only account for the dynamic effects of monetary policy shocks if it is assumed that aggregate capital accumulation is much smoother than it would be the case under frictionless firm-level investment, as discussed in Woodford (2003, Ch. 5). We find that lumpy investment, when combined with price stickiness and market power of firms, can rationalize this assumption. Our main result is in stark contrast with the conclusions obtained by Thomas (2002) in the context of a real business cycle (RBC) model. We use our model to explain the economic mechanism behind this difference in the predictions of RBC and NK theory.Lumpy investment, Sticky prices

Inflation and output dynamics with firm-owned capital

We model firm-owned capital in a stochastic dynamic New-Keynesian general equilibrium model à la Calvo. We find that this structure implies equilibrium dynamics which are quantitatively di¤erent from the ones associated with a benchmark case where households accumulate capital and rent it to firms. Our findings therefore stress the importance of modeling an investment decision at the firm level–in addition to a meaningful price setting decision. Along the way we argue that the problem of modeling firm-owned capital with Calvo price-setting has not been solved in a correct way in the previous literature.Monetary policy shocks, sticky prices, investments

Pitfalls in the Modelling of Forward-Looking Price Setting and Inverstment Behavior

We discuss some di?culties in a dynamic New-Keynesian model with staggered price setting à la Calvo and a convex capital adjustment cost at the firm level, as considered by Woodford (2003, Ch. 5). It is shown that the implied simultaneous price setting and investment decision has not been analyzed properly. Our work fills that gap by proposing a tractable solution to the key problem of describing the inflation dynamics associated with that structure. We use our framework to assess to what extent capital accumulation matters for inflation and output dynamics. JEL Classification: E22, E31Sticky Prices; Investments

Firm-specific capital and welfare

What are the consequences for monetary policy design implied by the fact that price setting and investment takes typically place simultaneously at the firm level? To address this question we analyze simple (constrained) optimal interest rate rules in the context of a dynamic New Keynesian model featuring firm-speci.c capital accumulation as well as sticky prices and wages à la Calvo. We make the case for Taylor type rules. They are remarkably robust in the sense that their welfare implications do not appear to hinge neither on the speci.c assumptions regarding capital accumulation that are used in their derivation nor on the particular definition of natural output that is used to construct the output gap. On the other hand we find that rules prescribing that the central bank does not react to any measure of real economic activity are not robust in that sense.Monetary policy, Sticky prices, Aggregate investment

Firm-Specific Investment, Sticky Prices, and the Taylor Principle

According to the Taylor principle a central bank should adjust the nominal interest rate by more than one for one in response to changes in current in?ation. Most of the existing literature supports the view that by following this simple recommendation a central bank can avoid being a source of unnecessary ?uctuations in economic activity. The present paper shows that this conclusion is not robust with respect to the modelling of capital accumulation. We use our insights to discuss the desirability of alternative arrangements for the conduct of monetary policy.international banking, portfolio diversification, international integration

Pitfalls in the modeling of forward-looking price setting and investment decisions

The present paper makes progress in explaining the role of capital for inflation and output dynamics. We followWoodford (2003, Ch. 5) in assuming Calvo pricing combined with a convex capital adjustment cost at the firm level. Our main result is that capital accumulation affects inflation dynamics primarily through its impact on the marginal cost. This mechanism is much simpler than the one implied by the analysis in Woodford's text. The reason is that his analysis suffers from a conceptual mistake, as we show. The latter obscures the economic mechanism through which capital affects inflation and output dynamics in the Calvo model, as discussed in Woodford (2004).Sticky prices, investments

Lumpy Investment and State-Dependent Pricing in General Equilibrium

The lumpy nature of plant-level investment is generally not taken into account in the context of monetary theory (see, e.g., Christiano et al. 2005 and Woodford 2005). We formulate a generalized (S,s) pricing and investment model which is empirically more plausible along that dimension. Surprisingly, our main result shows that the presence of lumpy investment casts doubt on the ability of sticky prices to imply a quantitatively relevant monetary transmission mechanism.Lumpy investment, Sticky prices