Ask NiyaThe basic framework for evaluating monetary policy highlights that expectations about future inflation and how these expectations are formed play a critical role in shaping macro-economic outcomes.
In essence, the current state of the economy is influenced by anticipated future inflation, which in turn is shaped by expected policy changes.
While the targets and instruments literature does not strongly advocate for money supply targets, the monetary rules literature argues in favor of controlling money supply.
This school of thought introduces two key elements: first, that all policy actions should be preannounced; second, that monetary policy should avoid being activist or reactive.
A central question arises—should policy incorporate feedback from economic events? The answer influences whether preannouncement is feasible or useful.
If a fixed rule (like a constant money supply growth rate) is followed, public preannouncement is straightforward. However, complex feedback-based rules may render preannouncement ineffective or confusing.
One argument for monetary rules is political—discretionary powers, including those over money supply, are prone to misuse.
Therefore, such powers should be constrained by a monetary constitution, including a rule for the growth rate of money supply.
This perspective rests on skepticism toward a benevolent and omniscient policy maker, emphasizing institutional checks over discretion.
Broader developments in macroeconomic theory added support for this position, particularly the natural rate hypothesis and rational expectations theory, both of which downplay the lasting effects of policy on real output.
According to the rational expectations literature, only unsystematic and unanticipated policy can affect real output—but often in detrimental ways by increasing output variance.
The Lucas critique and the time inconsistency problem further suggest that seeking an "optimal policy" may not be achievable or well-defined.
Thus, it's argued that authorities should commit to a monetary rule, framing it as a stable alternative to discretionary and ad hoc policy actions.
In recent years, economists have increasingly advocated that the responsibility for output and inflation stabilisation be assigned primarily to monetary policy.
This shift occurred because fiscal policy has lost prominence since the 1960s, due to persistent budget deficits and the inability of political systems to make timely tax and expenditure decisions.
Consequently, monetary policy has taken a central role in macroeconomic policy making.
Early in the study of dynamic economics, Ragnar Frisch (1993) conceptualized economic fluctuations using the notions of impulses and propagation processes.
Impulses occur irregularly and their effects are distributed through the economy via a propagation mechanism.
Recent literature refers to shocks instead of impulses and transmission instead of propagation. The transmission process describes how an economy responds to these shocks.
Monetary policy is a powerful tool, but one that can produce unexpected or adverse consequences if not properly timed or assessed.
For effective policy design and implementation, it is crucial to understand how monetary policy affects the economy, especially in terms of timing and transmission effects.
Monetary transmission operates through changes in the cost and availability of credit and money.
The success of monetary policy is largely determined by the institutional infrastructure available to transmit impulses initiated by the central bank.
The interrelationship between money, output, and prices forms a foundational block of monetary theory and macroeconomic modeling.
A key concern for monetary authorities is having an accurate understanding of the monetary transmission mechanism.
They focus on the channels through which monetary effects spread into the economy, especially the real sector.
Transmission channels evolve over time, influenced by changes in the institutional setup, which may make old channels less effective while enabling new ones.
Policymakers must continuously monitor and understand these channels for improved insights and policy decisions.
The transmission mechanism operates through several key routes:
The quantum channel, which relates primarily to changes in money supply and credit availability.
The rate channel, which includes the interest rate channel, exchange rate channel, and asset price channel.
One of the most contentious issues in monetary policy literature is the presence of lags in the policy's impact on the economy.
The impact of monetary policy is typically categorized into two major lags: inside lag and outside lag.
The inside lag refers to the delay within the central bank—between the recognition of the need for action and the actual policy decision or implementation.
The outside lag refers to the time taken for the change in interest rates and credit availability to begin affecting real variables like output and employment.
In the context of policy formulation by central banks, the focus is often on understanding and minimizing the inside lag.
The inside lag includes two main components: recognition lag and decision/action lag.
The recognition lag measures the time between when action is needed and when the central bank recognizes this need.
This lag depends on how efficiently the bank can collect and interpret economic data.
The decision lag (also known as action lag) refers to the time between recognizing the problem and actually implementing the policy response.
The combined duration of inside and outside lags raises concerns over the effectiveness of discretionary monetary policy in stabilizing business cycles.
Long or variable lags can reduce the precision and timing of policy measures, potentially destabilizing rather than stabilizing the economy.
Ask Niya