Monetary Equilibrium And Nominal Income Targeting

This book examines the case of nominal income targeting as a monetary policy rule. In recent years the most well-known nominal income targeting rule has been NGDP (level) Targeting, associated with a group of economists referred to as market monetarists (Scott Sumner, David Beckworth, and Lars Christensen among others). Nominal income targeting, though not new in monetary theory, was relegated in economic theory following the Keynesian revolution, up until the financial crisis of 2008, when it began to receive renewed attention. This book fills a gap in the literature available to researchers, academics, and policy makers on the benefits of nominal income targeting against alternative monetary rules. It starts with the theoretical foundations of monetary equilibrium. With this foundation laid, it then deals with nominal income targeting as a monetary policy rule. What are the differences between NGDP Targeting and Hayek’s rule? How do these rules stand up against other monetary rules like inflation targeting, the Taylor rule, or Friedman’s k-percent? Nominal income targeting is a rule which is better equipped to avoid monetary disequilibrium when there is no inflation. Therefore, a book that explores the theoretical foundation of nominal income targeting, comparing it with other monetary rules, using the 2008 crisis to assess it and laying out monetary policy reforms towards a nominal income targeting rule will be timely and of interest to both academics and policy makers.

This paper discusses nominal income targeting as a possible rule for the conduct of monetary policy. We begin by discussing why a rule for monetary policy may be desirable and the characteristics that a good rule should have. We emphasize, in particular, three types of nominal income targets, which differ in how they respond to past shocks, to prices, and real economic activity. A key question is how any of these rules might be implemented in practice. We suggest that the consensus forecast of future nominal income could playa role in ensuring that the central bank does not deviate from its announced target. To show how economic performance might have differed historically if the Fed had been committed to some type of nominal income target, we offer simulations of a simple model of the economy. According to the simulations, the primary benefit of nominal income targeting would have been reduced volatility in the price level and the inflation rate. Whether real economic activity would have been less volatile is unclear.

Tiivistelmä.

This paper evaluates the proposal that government authorities ought to target nominal income. It begins by viewing the literature in some detail. It then undertakes a theoretical analysis of the proposal first for the small country and next for the large country. There is then a general discussion of various issues posed by nominal income targeting. Finally, the paper summarizes the empirical work to date. We show that traditional theoretical analysis tends to be too simple and overly biased in favor of nominal income targeting. When more realistic assumptions are made or econometric simulations are undertaken the case for nominal income targeting is substantially weakened but not, however, destroyed.

This book examines the case of nominal income targeting as a monetary policy rule. In recent years the most well-known nominal income targeting rule has been NGDP (level) Targeting, associated with a group of economists referred to as market monetarists (Scott Sumner, David Beckworth, and Lars Christensen among others). Nominal income targeting, though not new in monetary theory, was relegated in economic theory following the Keynesian revolution, up until the financial crisis of 2008, when it began to receive renewed attention. This book fills a gap in the literature available to researchers, academics, and policy makers on the benefits of nominal income targeting against alternative monetary rules. It starts with the theoretical foundations of monetary equilibrium. With this foundation laid, it then deals with nominal income targeting as a monetary policy rule. What are the differences between NGDP Targeting and Hayek’s rule? How do these rules stand up against other monetary rules like inflation targeting, the Taylor rule, or Friedman’s k-percent? Nominal income targeting is a rule which is better equipped to avoid monetary disequilibrium when there is no inflation. Therefore, a book that explores the theoretical foundation of nominal income targeting, comparing it with other monetary rules, using the 2008 crisis to assess it and laying out monetary policy reforms towards a nominal income targeting rule will be timely and of interest to both academics and policy makers.

We analyze coordination of monetary and exchange rate policy in a two-sector model of a small open economy featuring imperfect substitution between domestic and foreign financial assets. Our central finding is that management of the exchange rate greatly enhances the efficacy of inflation targeting. In a flexible exchange rate system, inflation targeting incurs a high risk of indeterminacy where macroeconomic fluctuations can be driven by self-fulfilling expectations. Moreover, small inflation shocks may escalate into much larger increases in inflation ex post. Both problems disappear when the central bank leans heavily against the wind in a managed float.

This is the second chapter of a forthcoming monograph entitled "On Implementing Full-Fledged Inflation-Targeting Regimes: Saying What You Do and Doing What You Say." We begin by discussing the costs of inflation, including their role in generating boom-bust cycles. Following a general discussion of the need for a nominal anchor, we describe a specific type of monetary anchor, the inflation-targeting regime, and its two key intellectual roots-the absence of long-run trade-offs and the time-inconsistency problem. We conclude by providing a brief introduction to the way in which inflation targeting works.