Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy

I had the pleasure of attending “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy IV” at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. I highly recommend viewing the panels and materials online.

The two-day conference left me wondering what it actually means to “rethink” macro. The conference title refers to rethinking macroeconomic policy, not macroeconomic research or analysis, but of course these are related. Adam Posen’s opening remarks expressed dissatisfaction with DSGE models, VARs, and the like, and these sentiments were occasionally echoed in the other panels in the context of the potentially large role of nonlinearities in economic dynamics. Then, in the opening session, Olivier Blanchard talked about whether we need a “revolution” or “evolution” in macroeconomic thought. He leans toward the latter, while his coauthor Larry Summers leans toward the former. But what could either of these look like? How could we replace or transform the existing modes of analysis?

I looked back on the materials from Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy of 2010. Many of the policy challenges discussed at that conference are still among the biggest challenges today. For example, low inflation and low nominal interest rates limit the scope of monetary policy in recessions. In 2010, raising the inflation target and strengthening automatic fiscal stabilizers were both suggested as possible policy solutions meriting further research and discussion. Inflation and nominal rates are still very low seven years later, and higher inflation targets and stronger automatic stabilizers are still discussed, but what I don’t see is a serious proposal for change in the way we evaluate these policy proposals.

Plenty of papers use basically standard macro models and simulations to quantify the costs and benefits of raising the inflation target. Should we care? Should we discard them and rely solely on intuition? I’d say: probably yes, and probably no. Will we (academics and think tankers) ever feel confident enough in these results to make a real policy change? Maybe, but then it might not be up to us.

Ben Bernanke raised probably the most specific and novel policy idea of the conference, a monetary policy framework that would resemble a hybrid of inflation targeting and price level targeting. In normal times, the central bank would have a 2% inflation target. At the zero lower bound, the central bank would allow inflation to rise above the 2% target until inflation over the duration of the ZLB episode averaged 2%. He suggested that this framework would have some of the benefits of a higher inflation target and of price level targeting without some of the associated costs. Inflation would average 2%, so distortions from higher inflation associated with a 4% target would be avoided. The possibly adverse credibility costs of switching to a higher target would also be minimized. The policy would provide the usual benefits of history-dependence associated with price level targeting, without the problems that this poses when there are oil shocks.

It’s an exciting idea, and intuitively really appealing to me. But how should the Fed ever decide whether or not to implement it? Bernanke mentioned that economists at the Board are working on simulations of this policy. I would guess that these simulations involve many of the assumptions and linearizations that rethinking types love to demonize. So again: Should we care? Should we rely solely on intuition and verbal reasoning? What else is there?

Later, Jason Furman presented a paper titled, “Should policymakers care whether inequality is helpful or harmful for growth?” He discussed some examples of evaluating tradeoffs between output and distribution in toy models of tax reform. He begins with the Mankiw and Weinzierl (2006) example of a 10 percent reduction in labor taxes paid for by a lump-sum tax. In a Ramsey model with a representative agent, this policy change would raise output by 1 percent. Replacing the representative agent with agents with the actual 2010 distribution of U.S. incomes, only 46 percent of households would see their after-tax income increase and 41 percent would see their welfare increase. More generally, he claims that “the growth effects of tax changes are about an order of magnitude smaller than the distributional effects of tax changes—and the disparity between the welfare and distribution effects is even larger” (14). He concludes:

“a welfarist analyzing tax policies that entail tradeoffs between efficiency and equity would not be far off in just looking at static distribution tables and ignoring any dynamic effects altogether. This is true for just about any social welfare function that places a greater weight on absolute gains for households at the bottom than at the top. Under such an approach policymaking could still be done under a lexicographic process—so two tax plans with the same distribution would be evaluated on the basis of whichever had higher growth rates…but in this case growth would be the last consideration, not the first” (16).

As Posen then pointed out, Furman’s paper and his discussants largely ignored the discussions of macroeconomic stabilization and business cycles that dominated the previous sessions on monetary and fiscal policy. The panelists acceded that recessions, and hysteresis in unemployment, can exacerbate economic disparities. But the fact that stabilization policy was so disconnected from the initial discussion of inequality and growth shows just how much rethinking still has not occurred.

In 1987, Robert Lucas calculated that the welfare costs of business cycles are minimal. In some sense, we have “rethought” this finding. We know that it is built on assumptions of a representative agent and no hysteresis, among other things. And given the emphasis in the fiscal and monetary policy sessions on avoiding or minimizing business cycle fluctuations, clearly we believe that the costs of business cycle fluctuations are in fact quite large. I doubt many economists would agree with the statement that “the welfare costs of business cycles are minimal.” Yet, the public finance literature, even as presented at a conference on rethinking macroeconomic policy, still evaluates welfare effects of policy using models that totally omit business cycle fluctuations, because, within those models, such fluctuations hardly matter for welfare. If we believe that the models are “wrong” in their implications for the welfare effects of fluctuations, why are we willing to take their implications for the welfare effects of tax policies at face value?

I don’t have a good alternative—but if there is a Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy V, I hope some will be suggested. The fact that the conference speakers are so distinguished is both an upside and a downside. They have the greatest understanding of our current models and policies, and in many cases were central to developing them. They can rethink, because they have already thought, and moreover, they have large influence and loud platforms. But they are also quite invested in the status quo, for all they might criticize it, in a way that may prevent really radical rethinking (if it is really needed, which I’m not yet convinced of). (A more minor personal downside is that I was asked multiple times whether I was an intern.)

If there is a Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy V, I also hope that there will be a session on teaching and training. The real rethinking is going to come from the next generations of economists. How do we help them learn and benefit from the current state of economic knowledge without being constrained by it? This session could also touch on continuing education for current economists. What kinds of skills should we be trying to develop now? What interdisciplinary overtures should we be making?

Cautious Optimism about Fed Independence

Unsurprisingly, the FOMC decided to raise its federal funds rate target by 25 basis points at its March 15 meeting. The move was widely anticipated, especially following the strong recent employment report. The day before the meeting, the New York Times wrote that the "Fed's challenge, after raising rates, may be existential," anticipating greater-than-ever threats to the Fed's independence from the President and Congress.

In the past few years, Republicans have been more frequent critics of low interest rates than Democrats. During the campaign, in September, Trump accused Yellen of keeping interest rates artificially low to boost support for Obama and the Democrats. However, a few months prior, in May, he expressed support for the Fed's low interest rate policy, primarily because of its favorable impact of the U.S. trade position with China and on government borrowing costs.

And since the election, it can again be presumed that he favors the maintenance of low rates. Why? For the same reason that most Presidents favor lower rates--to boost employment and growth (at least in the short run), and, in turn, Presidential approval. This is exactly why most central banks are granted independence: if Presidents set monetary policy, it would tend to be too loose, and therefore inflationary.

With Trump, this desire to boost employment and growth as a means to gain personal approval is especially acute. Trump is brazen in his desire to pass off job growth as a marker of his personal success:

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! pic.twitter.com/wAkQMKdPXA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 14, 2017

So the worry reflected in the New York Times piece and elsewhere is that by raising rates, Yellen and the Fed are opposing the President's desires and risking retribution. The retribution could come in the form of legislation that would reduce the Fed's power or discretion, or in the form of Presidential appointments to the Board of Governors who would be more susceptible to Presidential persuasion. Trump will also have the opportunity to reappoint or replace Yellen as Chair next year. It seems, at first blush, that Federal Reserve independence is in serious danger.

While I don't want to undersell that danger, I do want to point out reasons to maintain at least a drop of optimism. First, fear of Presidential or Congressional retribution did not lead the FOMC to avoid this rate hike. Yellen is not willing to play by Trump's rules to ensure her reappointment. That was probably already obvious to anyone familiar with her career and reputation, but it is still noteworthy enough to reflect on. While the Fed's de jure independence is in tact for now, its de facto independence seems to be as well.

Second, with a President this polarizing and with approval ratings so low, Presidential attacks on the Fed could actually be just what the Fed needs. So far, Trump has avoided tweeting about the FOMC decision. But suppose Trump does criticize the Fed on Twitter soon. This might not be all bad-- it could be a case of "all press is good press." The biggest obstacle to the Fed's communication strategy, and in turn to accountability, seems to be its lack of a broad audience, and Trump--with 27 million twitter followers to the Fed's 402,000--could inadvertently provide the Fed with the communication platform it has so severely been lacking. The key will be for the Fed to use any newly-gained pulpit to convincingly argue why independence is worth protecting. This will be more effective if combined with discussions of how the Fed intends to hold itself more accountable to the public in the future.

Political Pressures on the Fed and the Trump Presidency

On Monday evening, Charles Weise gave a seminar at Haverford on "Political Pressures on Monetary Policy during the U.S. Great Inflation," a paper he published in 2012. In the paper, he details how Congress and the Presidents (especially Nixon) pressured the Fed, both directly and indirectly, to pursue loose monetary policy that contributed to the Great Inflation in the 1970s.

The paper highlights the fact that although the Fed is nominally independent, Congress and the President can influence the Fed's actions by threatening to restrict the Fed's independence. This is not necessarily a bad thing. One way to try to make the Fed accountable to the public is to make the Fed accountable to publicly-elected officials. This can be achieved by several (imperfect) means-- hearings and testimonies and other transparency requirements, the appointment process, and (threatened) legislation. Problems arise when the interests of the elected officials are not in line with the interests of the electorate. In the 1970s, for example, Nixon's interest in maintaining low unemployment at the cost of high and rising inflation was for the sake of political gain and neglected adverse long-run consequences. Problems can also arise when the interests of elected officials are in line with those of the public, but elected officials' understanding of monetary policy is severely flawed.

It was coincidental that this talk was the evening before Election Day. The candidates' views on the Fed got less attention than many other issues and aspects of the campaign, but they did come up from time to time. Donald Trump, for example, claimed that "We are in a very big, ugly bubble...The Fed  is more political than Hillary Clinton.”

Now, a big question is what Trump's election will mean for the future of the Fed. Beyond the relatively minor issue of whether this unexpected election result will cause the Fed to postpone its next rate hike, the larger issues have to do with legislation and future appointments.

In the Great Recession and ever since, we have seen many calls and proposals for more accountability for the Fed from both sides of the political spectrum. Most of these have at least some merit, even if they are misguided to varying degrees. They stem from a recognition that the Fed is powerful, and that its actions affect the distribution of resources and the health of the global economy. But the types of legislation that Trump seems likely to support would drastically restrict the Fed's independence and discretion-- he has even mentioned a desire to return to the gold standard.

Moreover, no legislation designed to promote accountability can be effective without choosing monetary policymakers that are well-qualified technocrats to skillfully implement policy. Janet Yellen's term as Fed Chair ends in 2018, and Trump has suggested that he will not reappoint her. This would represent a departure from the pattern established by Obama's reappointment of Ben Bernanke, who was originally appointed by George W. Bush. Obama's reappointment of Bernanke signalled that the Fed Chair was a technocratic position, not a partisan one. Yellen, like Bernanke, is well-credentialed for her post. Vice Chair Stanley Fischer's term also ends in 2018, and there are two other open seats on the Board of Governors. Monetary policy is complex enough that even a well-intentioned policymaker without substantial knowledge and skill could spell trouble. A neither well-intentioned nor highly skilled policymaker would almost guarantee disaster.

Finally, monetary policy will interact with other economic policies. Lower long-run growth means lower natural interest rates. This means that we are already uncomfortably close to the zero lower bound, and almost certain to hit it again with the next recession. Severely restrictive trade and immigration policy will even further reduce the economy's capacity for growth, compounding this problem.

Congressional Attention to Monetary Policy over Time

The Federal Reserve describes itself as "an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress...Congress also structured the Federal Reserve to ensure that its monetary policy decisions focus on achieving these long-run goals and do not become subject to political pressures that could lead to undesirable outcomes."

The independence of the Fed is by no means fixed or guaranteed. Rather, the Fed continually attempts to defend its independence. As Dincer and Eichengreen (2014) note, the movement of central banks toward greater transparency can be understood in part as an effort to protect independence by demonstrating accountability outside of the electoral process. They explain that "calls to audit the Federal Reserve have intensified as the central bank has come to rely more extensively on unconventional policies and expanded the range of its interventions in securities markets. The FOMC’s decision to make more information publicly available can thus be understood as an effort to reconcile the increased complexity of its operations with the desire to maintain and defend its independence."

The Fed derives its authority from Congress, and Congress can alter the Fed's responsibilities (and decrease its independence) by statute. Since the financial crisis, congressional calls for more oversight of the Fed or for less discretion by monetary policymakers abound. In National Affairs, Steve Stein writes:

"The independence of the Federal Reserve may well be more threatened in the coming years than at any time in the 100-year history of America's central bank. That independence could prove impossible to protect as long as the Fed continues to exchange its role as a defender of monetary stability for a new role as the ultimate overseer of the financial system. That new role is an inherently political one, and the Fed cannot expect to be permitted to perform it without interference from the democratically elected institutions of our political system."

It is difficult to measure the level of "threat" to Federal Reserve independence, but some indicators of Congressional attention to monetary policy are available. The Comparative Agendas Project tracks data on policy agendas, including hearings and bills, across several countries. Congress may use monetary policy-related hearings or bills as a form of signal to the Fed--an indirect form of political pressure or warning.

The figure below shows the number of bills in the U.S. Congress related to interest rates or monetary policy over time. Unsurprisingly, the 1970s and early 80s saw the largest number of such bills. The 1973-74 Congress considered 101 bills about interest rates and 55 about monetary policy. But the 2009-10 and 2011-12 Congress considered just 15 and 22 bills about monetary policy, respectively, which is low by historical standards.

Created at http://www.comparativeagendas.net/

The next graph, below, shows the number of Congressional hearings on interest rates and monetary policy. These also peaked around the late 1970s. Since then, however, while hearings on interest rates have dwindled, hearings on monetary policy remain frequent--typically 10-20 per year. There is a mild upward trend from 2005 to 2012. Still, by neither metric of bills nor hearings is the Fed facing an unprecedented era of Congressional meddling.

Created at http://www.comparativeagendas.net/

Federal Reserve Communication with Congress

In 2003, Ben Bernanke described a central bank's communication strategy as "regular procedures for communicating with the political authorities, the financial markets, and the general public." The fact that there are three target audiences of monetary policy communication, with three distinct sets of needs and concerns, is an important point. Alan Blinder and coauthors note that most of the research on monetary policy communication has focused on communication with financial markets. In my working paper "Fed Speak on Main Street," I focus on communication with the general public. But with the recent attention on Congressional calls to audit or reform the Fed, communication with the third audience, political authorities, also merits attention.

Bernanke added that "a central bank's communications strategy, closely linked to the idea of transparency, has many aspects and many motivations." One such motivation is accountability. Federal Reserve communication with political authorities is contentious because of the tension that can arise between accountability and freedom from political pressure. As Laurence Meyer explained in 2000:

Even a limited degree of independence, taken literally, could be viewed as inconsistent with democratic ideals and, in addition, might leave the central bank without appropriate incentives to carry out its responsibilities. Therefore, independence has to be balanced with accountability--accountability of the central bank to the public and, specifically, to their elected representatives. 

It is important to appreciate, however, that steps to encourage accountability also offer opportunities for political pressure. The history of the Federal Reserve's relationship to the rest of government is one marked by efforts by the rest of government both to foster central bank independence and to exert political pressure on monetary policy.

It is worthwhile to take a step back and ask what is meant by accountability. Colloquially and in academic literature, the term accountability has become "an ever-expanding concept." Accountability does not mean that the Fed needs to please every member of Congress, or even some of them, all the time. If it did, there would be no point in having an independent central bank! So what does accountability mean?  A useful synonym is answerability. The Fed's accountability to Congress means the Fed must answer to Congress-- this requires, of course, that Congress ask something of the Fed. David Wessel explains that this can be a problem:

Congress is having a hard time fulfilling its responsibilities to hold the Fed accountable. Too few members of Congress know enough to ask good questions at hearings where the Fed chair testifies. Too many view hearings as a way to get themselves on TV or to score political points against the other party.

Accountability, in the sense of answerability, is a two-way street requiring effort on the parts of both the Fed and Congress. Recent efforts by Congress to impose "accountability" would clear Congress of the more onerous part of its task. The Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act introduced in 2014 would require that the Fed adopt a rules-based policy. The legislation states that "Upon determining that plans…cannot or should not be achieved, the Federal Open Market Committee shall submit an explanation for that determination and an updated version of the Directive Policy Rule.”

In 1976, Senator Hubert Humphrey made a similar proposal: the president would submit recommendations for monetary policy, and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would have to explain any proposed deviation within fifteen days. This proposal did not pass, but other legislation in the late 1970s did change the Federal Reserve's objectives and standards for accountability. Prompted by high inflation, the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977 made price stability an explicit policy goal. Representative Augustus Hawkins and Senator Humphrey introduced the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, also known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which added a full employment goal and obligated the Fed Chair to make biannual reports to Congress. It was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 27, 1978.

The Humphrey-Hawkins Act, though initially resisted by FOMC members, did improve the Fed's accountability or answerability to Congress. The requirement of twice-yearly reports to Congress literally required the Fed Chair to answer Congress' questions (though likely, for a time, in "Fed Speak.") The outlining of the Fed's policy goals defined the scope of what Congress should ask about. In terms of the Fed's communication strategy with Congress, its format, broadly, is question-and-answer. Its content is the Federal Reserve's mandates. Its tone--clear or obfuscatory, helpful or hostile--has varied over time and across Fed officials and members of Congress. 

Since 1978, changes to the communication strategy, such as the announcement of a 2% long-run goal for PCE inflation in 2012, have attempted to facilitate the Fed's answerability to Congress. The proposal to require that the Fed follow a rule-based policy goes beyond the requirements of accountability. The Fed must be accountable for the outcomes of its policy, but that does not mean restricting the flexibility of its actions. Unusual or extreme economic conditions require discretion on the part of monetary policymakers, which they must be prepared to explain as clearly as possible. 

Janet Yellen remarked in 2013 that "By the eve of the recent financial crisis, it was established that the FOMC could not simply rely on its record of systematic behavior as a substitute for communication--especially under unusual circumstances, for which history had little to teach" [emphasis added]. Imposing systematic behavior in the form of rules-based policy is an even poorer substitute. As monetary begins to normalize, Congress' role in monetary policy is to question the Fed, not to bully it.

Regime Change From Roosevelt to Rousseff

I've written another post for the Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies blog:

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in October 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. High unemployment, severely depressed spending, and double-digit deflation plagued the economy. Shortly after his inauguration in March 1933, a dramatic turnaround occurred. Positive inflation was restored, and 1933 to 1937 was the fastest four-year period of output growth in peacetime in United States history. 

How did such a transformation occur? Economists Peter Temin and Barrie Wigmore attribute the recovery to a “regime change.” In the economics literature, regime change refers to the idea that a set of new policies can have major effects by rapidly and sharply changing expectations. A regime change can occur when a policymaker credibly commits to a new set of policies and goals.... 

In short, Roosevelt stated and proved that he was willing to do whatever it would take to end deflation and restore economic growth. As Roosevelt proclaimed on October 22, 1933: “If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another. Do it, we will.” 

Almost all politicians promise change but few manage such drastic transformation. In Brazil’s closely contested presidential election this October, incumbent President Dilma Rousseff won reelection with a three-point margin over centrist candidate Aecio Neves. Rouseff told supporters, “I know that I am being sent back to the presidency to make the big changes that Brazilian society demands. I want to be a much better president than I have been until now.” 

Rousseff’s rhetoric of “big changes” refers in large part to the Brazilian economy, which is plagued with stagnant growth, high inflation, and a strained federal budget. Brazil’s currency, the real, hit a nine-year low following Rousseff’s victory, and the stock market also tumbled. This market tumult reflects investors’ doubts about the Rousseff administration’s intention and ability to enact effective reforms. Investors viewed Neves as the pro-business, anti-interventionist candidate and are unconvinced that Rousseff will act decisively to restore fiscal discipline and rein in inflation. In other words, Rousseff’s talk of change is not fully credible in the way that Roosevelt’s was... 

Though Rousseff is taking some actions to improve business conditions, restore fiscal discipline, and reduce inflation, the problem is that they are being enacted quietly and reluctantly rather than being trumpeted as part of a broader vision of reform. The key to regime change is that the effects of policy changes depend crucially on how the changes are presented and perceived. Economic policies work not only through direct channels but also through signaling and expectations. For example, a small rise in fuel prices and a reduction in state bank subsidized lending may have small direct effects, but if they are viewed as signals that the president is wholeheartedly embracing market-friendly reforms, the effects will be much greater. So far, despite Rousseff’s campaign slogan — “new government, new ideas” — she hasn’t credibly committed to a new regime.

Read the complete article and my pre-election Brazil article at the CLAS blog.

The Brazilian Election and Central Bank Independence

From my post at the Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) blog:

Brazilians will head to the polls on October 5 to vote in a tight presidential race. President Dilma Rousseff’s leading challenger is Socialist Party candidate Marina Silva. A key component of Silva’s economic platform is her support for a more independent central bank. Central bank independence, long a topic of interest to economists, is now capturing wide public attention — and for good reason...

You can read the rest at the CLAS blog. There is also a lot of interesting material there about the economics, culture, and politics of Latin America. For example, there's a video of a recent CLAS seminar by Professor João Saboia on "Macroeconomics, the Labor Market, and Income Distribution in Brazil." I wrote an article on his lecture that will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Berkeley Review of Latin American Studies. Since CLAS is a collaboration between professors and graduate students in many different departments at Berkeley, there is a great mix of material there on cinema, literature, the environment, policy, etc.

The Most Transparent Central Bank in the World?

At a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen called the Fed the "the most transparent central bank to my knowledge in the world.” I'll try to evaluate her claim in this post. For context, the hearing focused on legislation proposed by House Republicans called the Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act, which would require the Fed to choose and disclose a rule for making policy decisions. Alan Blinder explains:

"A 'rule' in this context means a precise set of instructions—often a mathematical formula—that tells the Fed how to set monetary policy. Strictly speaking, with such a rule in place, you don't need a committee to make decisions—or even a human being. A handheld calculator will do."

Blinder, who has long advocated central bank transparency, calls FRAT an "unneccessary fix" for the Fed. Discretion by an independent Fed needs not impede or preclude transparency, and the imposition of rules-based policy would not guarantee improved accountability and transparency.

What about Yellen's description of the Fed as the most transparent central bank in the world? Is it reasonable?  Nergiz Dincer and Barry Eichengreen have constructed an index of transparency for more than 100 central banks. Updates to the index, released earlier this year, cover the years 1998 to 2010.

Dincer and Eichengreen rate transparency on a scale of 0 (lowest) to 15 (highest). The 15-point transparency scale is based on awarding up to 3 points in each of the following components:

1. Political transparency: statement of objectives and prioritization, quantification of primary objective, and explicit contracts between monetary authority and government
2. Economic transparency: publication of central bank data, models, and forecasts
3. Procedural transparency: use of an explicit policy rule or strategy, and transparency over the decision-making process and deliberations
4. Policy transparency: prompt announcement and explanations of decisions and intentions; 
5. Operational transparency: regular evaluation of the extent to which targets have been achieved, provision of information on disturbances that affect monetary policy transmission, and evaluation of policy outcomes

The most transparent central banks as of 2010 are the Swedish Riksbank (14.5), the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (14), the Central Bank of Hungary (13.5), the Czech National Bank (12), the Bank of England (12), and the Bank of Israel (11.5).

The Federal Reserve, with a transparency score of 11, is tied for 7th with the ECB, the Bank of Canada, and the Reserve Bank of Australia. In 1998, the Fed's score was 8.5, and has held steady at 11 since 2006. So it is certainly reasonable to say that the Fed is among the most transparent central banks in the world. And since we can interpret transparency subjectively, and any rating scale has some degree of arbitrariness, these ratings don't disprove Yellen's claim.

The ratings were made in 2010. The Fed earned 1 out of 3 points in the political transparency category, 2.5 of 3 in procedural transparency, 1.5 of 3 in operational transparency, and perfect scores in the other categories.  The Fed's score should improve at the next update, since the January 2012 announcement of a quantitative 2% inflation goal may restore some partial credit in the political transparency category. A perfect 15 is not necessarily desirable. For example, one point in the political transparency category can only be awarded if the bank has either a single explicit objective or explicitly ranks its objectives in order or priority. Most banks that earn that point explicitly target inflation. To earn that point, the Fed would have to formally declare its price stability mandate a higher priority than its maximum employment mandate (or vice versa, which seems highly unlikely), while the Congressional mandate in the Federal Reserve Act does not prioritize one over the other.

Raghuram Rajan is Not Paul Volcker

Raghuram Rajan will take over leadership of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on September 4. The BBC lists some of the challenges facing the Indian economy, including a large current account deficit, weak rupee, the slowest growth in a decade (around 5%), and inequality, adding, "Many believe that the single biggest failure of the government's economic policies in recent years has been the inability to control inflation in general and food prices in particular."

It's clear that Rajan will have his work cut out for him, but what kind of work will that be? 

"The monetary situation is such that he may be forced to act as India’s Paul Volcker, hiking up rates and perhaps even orchestrating a recession to get the currency and inflation under control," writes Dylan Matthews. Matthews notes that "By law, India’s central bank doesn’t have much political independence, as Rajan serves at the pleasure of the government and can be sacked at any time. That could deter him from making tough moves against inflation that could have unpopular implications for growth. But Subramanian thinks he’ll have a great deal of flexibility in practice, even if the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party comes to power again."

There is a tendency to want to frame the challenges of the Indian economy in terms of a power struggle between monetary and fiscal authorities-- an "unseemly battle of wits over interest rates," according to Rajrishi Singhal at Bloomberg.  Singhal describes how the Finance Ministry has piled pressure on Rajan's predecessor, RBI Governor Duvvuri Subbarao, to keep rates low. The idea is that, if only the new Governor can stand up to "bullying" and raise rates, then inflation and the rupee can be stabilized. But India in 2013 is not the U.S. in 1979, and Raghuram Rajan need not imitate Paul Volcker.

A central banker's role in India is much different than a central banker's role in the United States or Europe. Monetary policy, remember, is ultimately based on frictions. Prices and inflation are nominal variables. In a frictionless economy, there is no role for monetary policy. It is because of certain frictions that monetary policy can have short-run effects, and these frictions provide the justification for using monetary policy to stabilize economic fluctuations over the business cycle. The optimal monetary policy depends on the nature and magnitude of these frictions. Sticky prices and sticky information are the two categories of frictions most used in the analysis of monetary policy. Both have similar implications for how monetary policy should generally work.

The theory behind the Taylor rule is based on the sticky price friction. The rule recommends a relatively high interest rate or “tight” policy when inflation or employment is relatively high, and a relatively low interest rate in the opposite scenario. According to the Taylor rule, India's policy rates are currently too low. As Ashok Rao writes (in a very excellent post), "A healthy Taylor rule requires an accurate estimate of the output gap which is founded on long-run trend growth. “Trend” growth is a useless concept in countries like India and China, whose growth rates have both a high mean and variance."

But there may be a more fundamental reason why the Taylor rule is not suitable for India. The Taylor rule is based on the sticky price friction, which may not be the dominant friction. Amartya Lahiri suggests that the dominant friction is asset market segmentation (emphasis added).

A well-known feature of the Indian economy is that access to asset markets and instruments is extremely limited. About 140 million households in India do not have access to any formal banking at all. Consequently, less than half of all individuals have access to any formal financial services...It is thus abundantly clear that there is endemic and widespread segmentation in asset markets in India with only a small subset of India having access to formal asset markets. But curiously, discussions about monetary policy in India are completely divorced from this asset market segmentation."

How does asset market segmentation impact the monetary policy calculus? In this case the central bank needs to use monetary policy to provide insurance to those that are absent from these markets. This policy imperative can naturally imply very different monetary policy responses relative to when prices are sticky.

Rajesh Singh, Amartya Lahiri, and Carlos Vegh study optimal monetary policy in environments with segmented asset markets. As Lahiri summarizes,

Intuitively, the role of policy under this friction is to protect households that are excluded from asset markets from excessive fluctuations in their consumption levels. When output is high, consumption of these households tends to rise due to (a) higher income; and (b) higher real money balances as the exchange rate tends to appreciate. By expanding money supply, the central bank can inflate away some of the increase in real balances and thereby moderate the rise in consumption. This procyclicality of the optimal monetary policy is clearly at odds with the Taylor rule prescription that monetary policy should be countercyclical.

The authors also find that asset market segmentation has surprising effects on optimal exchange rate regimes (effectively the opposite of the Mudellian model). They come down in favor of targeting monetary aggregates instead of targeting the exchange rate. The model of Singh et al. is admittedly very stylized and I have found no existing tests of its empirical implications. So I am certainly not actually recommending that Rajan rush to lower interest rates. Nor am I suggesting that Rao's proposal of a rule-based exchange rate policy should be off the table.

Rather, I just intend to highlight the topsy-turvy theoretical results that can arise when we alter the foundations of our models; in particular, when we acknowledge lack of financial inclusion as a significant friction. I also believe that an important role for Rajan, perhaps more important than any decision about interest rates, will be in reforming the financial system and promoting financial inclusion. I am very optimistic on this front. The Financial Times reports that "economists who know Mr Rajan well say helping hundreds of millions of Indians get access to efficient financial services is close to his heart." In 2008, he wrote "A Hundred Small Steps," a report on financial sector reforms. I am most impressed by his inclusion in Chapter 3, "Broadening Access to Finance," of this chart, which shows the interest rates actually paid by people in each income quartile.

It appears that he is quite sensitive to the severity of asset market segmentation in India and to the fact that interest rate movements are not evenly transmitted across all segments of the population.

Inflation Targeting Pressure in Japan

I recently wrote an article for the forthcoming Global Economic History Encyclopedia about inflation targeting. I only submitted the article for editing a few days ago, but it looks like it may be due for updates before the encyclopedia even comes out! The reason is news that Shinzo Abe, future premier of Japan, is pressuring the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to adopt a 2% inflation target. Apparently, if the bank refuses, Abe will try to change the law guaranteeing BOJ independence. Currently, the BOJ has a 1% inflation target. This is pretty big news, but I haven't seen any economist's analysis in the press yet, so I'll try to walk through some of the basic implications.

The Japanese economy experienced deflation and economic stagnation in the 1990s, recovered somewhat from 2003 to 2007, then fell back into recession. Consumer prices have fallen 6.8% since 1997. Richard Koo's book calls the extended Japanese recession "The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics" because of the light it can shed on macroeconomic theory. Paul Krugman has also repeatedly looked to Japan to study the macroeconomy under conditions of recession, deflation, and the liquidity trap.

To analyze the news about the possible 2% target, something to keep in mind is the relationship between interest rates and inflation. The nominal interest rate is the real interest rate plus expected inflation. There is a zero lower bound (ZLB) on nominal interest rates, since potential lenders would rather just hold cash than lend at negative nominal interest rates. Real interest rates affect decisions about spending and investing now versus later, so they affect aggregate demand. Typically in a recession, monetary authorities want to lower interest rates to boost aggregate demand. A certain level of real interest rates would theoretically restore full employment. But, especially when inflation is low or negative, the ZLB on nominal interest rates can prevent the real interest rate from going sufficiently low. This situation is called a liquidity trap, and renders conventional monetary policy obsolete.

Since the real interest rate is the nominal rate minus expected inflation, raising expected inflation can help lower the real interest rate. But raising expectations about future inflation is not a straightforward task. If a central bank starts printing a lot of money, the public still might not believe that it would continue to do so in the future, when the bank's incentives would be different. One purported solution is for the bank to publicly and explicitly commit to an inflation target. The public commitment is intended to add credibility, so that expectations will actually change.

The other relevant relationship is between exchange rates and inflation. If inflation in Japan is expected to be higher, then the yen will have less purchasing power in the future, so the yen will depreciate. Depreciation of the yen makes Japanese exports relatively cheaper and imports relatively more expensive. So a higher inflation target could reduce Japan's trade deficit, which has been large this year.

My final comment is that central bank independence is not a goal in and of itself. It may be a means of arriving at the goal of effective monetary policy, or it may not. Typically, central bank independence does facilitate effective monetary policy by adding credibility. But at the moment, the BOJ is not credible enough to achieve its 1% inflation target. Maybe if the 2% target were instituted by another part of the government considered more credible, it would actually be more effective. In conclusion, I am somewhat hopeful that Japan is headed in a good direction. Either the BOJ will adopt a 2% target, which will be seen as more credible due to government support, or the government will itself impose the target, which would be drastic enough to cause the markets to notice, bringing about some aggregate demand stimulus.

_______________________________________________________
P.S. I haven't written in awhile for two exciting reasons. First, I have been working on articles for the Global Economic History Encyclopedia. Along with inflation targeting, I have written about the euro area, the Basel Accords, the National Monetary Commission, the gold standard, the Glass-Steagall Act, Wildcat Banking, the Credit Anstalt Crisis, and a few others.

Second, I haven't been writing because I was too busy getting married and going on a honeymoon! I married Joe Binder on December 1 at Christ the King Catholic Church in Dallas, TX. Then we drove across the Southwest for our honeymoon, stopping at a lot of national parks and monuments including Carlsbad Caverns, Guadalupe Mountain, White Sands, Tucson, Sedona, the Gila Cliff Dwellings, and the Grand Canyon. We feel so happy and blessed and are excited about our first Christmas together!