The Sources of Disagreement Among International Macro Models and Implications for Policy Coordination

Jeffrey Frankel

No 1925, NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc

Abstract: This paper makes use of the simulation results of 12 leading large international econometric models, as to the effects of commonly specified changes in monetary and fiscal policy, conducted under the Brookings exercise "Empirical Macroeconomics for Interdependent Economies." The first half of the paper examines disagreement among the models on the signs of policy multipliers, and how such disagreement compares to the ambiguities appearing in the theoretical literature. There turns out to be relatively little disagreement as to the effects on output, prices and the exchange rate. The greatest disagreement is rather over the question whether a monetary expansion worsens or improves the current account. The second half of the paper examines the implications for internationa lmacroeconomic policy coordination. The existing literature makes the unrealistic assumption that policy-makers all know the true model, from whichit follows that the Nash bargaining solution is in general superior to the Nash competitive solution. But everything changes once we recognize that policy-makers' models, as the models in the Brookings simulations, differ from each other and therefore from the "true" model. When the central bank and fiscal authorities subscribe to conflicting models, it is still true that(1) the competitive equilibrium is sub-optimal, and that (2) the two authorities will in general be able to agree on a cooperative policy package that each believes will improve the objective function; however, (3) the bargaining solution is as likely to move the target variables in the wrong direction as in the right direction, in the light of a third true model. Out of 1,210possible combinations of different models subscribed to by the two policy authorities and models representing reality, bargaining raises welfare in only 819 cases. The conclusion is that disagreement as to the true model maybe a more serious obstacle to successful policy coordination than is institutional failure to enforce Pareto-improving solutions.

Date: 1986-05
Note: ITI IFM
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Published as Frankel, Jeffrey A. "The Implications Of Mean-Variance Optimization For Four Questions In International Macroeconomics," Journal of International Money and Finance, 1986, v5(Supp), S53-S75.
Published as as "Ambiguous Policy Multipliers in Theory and in Empirical Models" in Empirical Macroeconomics for Interdependent Economies, Ralph C. Bryant et al (eds) D.C., Brookings, April 1988.
Published as as "The Implications of Conflicting Models for Coordination Between Monetary and Fiscal Policy-Makers," In Empirical Macroeconomics for Interdependent Economies, eds., Ralph Bryant, et al. (Brookings Institution Press: Washington, D.C.), May 1988.
Published as in Frankel, Jeffrey A. "Financial Markets and Monetary Policy." The MIT Press (July 13, 1995)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w1925.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: The Sources of Disagreement Among International Macro Models, and Implications for Policy Coordination (1987)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberwo:1925

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w1925

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().