320 likes | 511 Views
Lecture 8. Central Banks - The Issue of Credibility and Reputation. This lecture addresses two issues: Credibility The distinction between rules and discretion a) credible commitments b) rules can be learned by private agents, discretion cannot. Lucas v Tinbergen.
E N D
Lecture 8 Central Banks - The Issue of Credibility and Reputation
This lecture addresses two issues: • Credibility • The distinction between rules and discretion • a) credible commitments • b) rules can be learned by private agents, discretion cannot
Lucas v Tinbergen • Tinbergen paradigm - discretionary policy can be used to meet set objectives. • If there are ‘n’ targets we need ‘n’ independent instruments to satisfy targets • Lucas critique - very act of discretion undermines its effectiveness • A modest policy of rules would be more effective
The Leader - Follower paradigm • Lucas approach treats the economy as a collection of optimising agents • But the government is also an optimising agent • The government can be treated as a leader • private agents are followers • Leader-follower game (Stackelberg)
Illustration of leader - follower game • At each date a speculator can raise domestic currency which is sold for foreign currency. • He pays a fixed charge of ‘c’ per transaction • Assume that there is a limit to which the speculator can sell in each period - transactions or liquidation costs • If a devaluation occurs the benefit is ‘π’ per unit of domestic currency
leader - follower continued • If a devaluation occurs - profit is π - ct; t=1,2,.. and ct is the opportunity cost • Government has reserves of $R • It is forced to devalue when it runs out of reserves
Assumptions • For a given level of reserves, the government prefers maintaining the exchange rate to devaluation • For a given exchange rate it prefers more reserves to less • 2 < $R < 3 • π/2 < c < π
Stackelberg Game G d nd End P s ns G G nd d nd d P P s ns ns s
Possible equilibrium • Speculators will sell until the government decides to devalue • Thus the government devalues immediately • delaying devaluation can occur only until t=3 • But suppose government can pre-commit not to devalue until all reserves are gone • devaluation does not occur
Conclusions • Solution concepts matter. Nash, Stackelberg, perfect equilibrium etc. • Even if it is accepted that the government is a leader, the inability to make self binding commitments may reduce the leaders power • without binding commitments there may be more than one solution.
Time consistency • Objective function V=V(x1,x2, 1, 2) • xs are targets and s are instruments • x1=f1(1) • x2=f2(x1, 2, 1) • In period 1 maximise w.r.t. 1 • In period 1 maximise w.r.t. 2 • In period 2 maximise w.r.t. 2same as period 1
Inflation - Unemployment illustration A C B U
Three types of policies • Discretionary policy - Nash • Policy rule • Cheating policy
Policy rule • Ex-ante optimal policy • time inconsistent • but if CB can pre-commit = e • = 0 = * • cost z = 0 = z*
Ranking of policies • Cheating is first best • policy rule is second best • discretion is third best
Enforcement rules • Credibility enhancing t-1 = et-1 • distrust and Nash enforcing t-1 et-1 • Thus the gain from cheating (reneging) must be judged against the costs of loss of reputation
Costs and benefits of commitment b2/2a Best enforceable rule b2/2a(1+r) rb/a(2+r) Ideal rule 0 b/a Enforceable range
Insights • The most important insight is that a superior policy to Nash is enforceable when reputation is a criterion • A policy is only credible if people can see that the costs of cheating is greater than the benefits • The most limiting aspect of the study is that reputation effects last only for 1 period
Backus and Driffil • Modification of Barro-Gordon result with introduction of asymmetric information • Agents are unaware of CB or governments cost function parameters • Let e = {0,1} • weak government inflates - plays =1 • strong government is sound money - plays =0
Information asymmetry • Private sector assigns a probability pt each period that the government is strong • pt is revised periodically • First, government avoids inflating = e=0 • Government still plays =0 but private sector assigns >0 • At some point the government plays =1
Conclusion • Contrary to Barro-Gordon there will exist a period during which a zero inflation policy is credible because it pays even a weak government to build up a stock of good reputation.
Insights • Two-sided uncertainty leads to Stackelberg warfare • Strong private sector may induce a stronger government to be tougher than necessary to convince them that they are strong • Even a strong government may abandon =0 if costs of disinflation are large