Nominal income versus Taylor-type rules in practice
Jonathan Benchimol () and
Andre Fourcans ()
Working Papers from HAL
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, a lively debate has emerged regarding which monetary policy rule the Fed (and other central banks) should follow, if any. To clarify this debate, several questions must be answered. Which monetary policy rule best the historical data? Which monetary policy rule best minimizes economic uncertainty and the Feds loss function? Which rule is best in terms of household welfare? Among the different rules, are NGDP growth or level targeting rules a good option, and when? Do they perform better than Taylor-type rules? To answer these questions, we use Bayesian estimations to test the Smets and Wouters (2007) model under nine different monetary policy rules with US data from 1955 to 2015 and over three different sub-periods. We find that when considering only the central bank’s loss function, the estimates generally indicate the superiority of NGDP level targeting rules, whatever the period. However, if other criteria are considered, the central banks objectives are not consistently met by a single rule for all periods.
Keywords: Monetary policy; NGDP targeting; Taylor rule; DSGE model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cba and nep-mon
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal-essec.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01357870
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Working Paper: Nominal income versus Taylor-type rules in practice (2016)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01357870
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().