NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES MACROECONOMIC MODELING FOR MONETARY POLICY EVALUATION Jordi Gali Mark Gertler Working Paper 13542 http://www.nber.org/papers/w13542 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge,MA 02138 October 2007 The authors thank Jim Hines,Andrei Shleifer,Jeremy Stein,and Timothy Taylor for helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft,and Steve Nicklas for excellent research assistance.Gali is grateful to CREA-Barcelona Economics and Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia.Gertler thanks the NSF and the Guggenheim Foundation.The views expressed herein are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 2007 by Jordi Gali and Mark Gertler.All rights reserved.Short sections of text,not to exceed two paragraphs,may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit,including notice, is given to the source
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES MACROECONOMIC MODELING FOR MONETARY POLICY EVALUATION Jordi Galí Mark Gertler Working Paper 13542 http://www.nber.org/papers/w13542 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 October 2007 The authors thank Jim Hines, Andrei Shleifer, Jeremy Stein, and Timothy Taylor for helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft, and Steve Nicklas for excellent research assistance. Galí is grateful to CREA-Barcelona Economics and Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Gertler thanks the NSF and the Guggenheim Foundation. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2007 by Jordi Galí and Mark Gertler. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source
Macroeconomic Modeling for Monetary Policy Evaluation Jordi Gali and Mark Gertler NBER Working Paper No.13542 October 2007 JEL No.E31.E32,E52 ABSTRACT We describe some of the main features of the recent vintage macroeconomic models used for monetary policy evaluation.We point to some of the key differences with respect to the earlier generation of macro models,and highlight the insights for policy that these new frameworks have to offer.Our discussion emphasizes two key aspects of the new models:the significant role of expectations of future policy actions in the monetary transmission mechanism,and the importance for the central bank of tracking of the flexible price equilibrium values of the natural levels of output and the real interest rate.We argue that both features have important implications for the conduct of monetary policy. Jordi Gali Centre de Recerca en Economia Internacional(CREI) Ramon Trias Fargas 25 08005 Barcelona SPAIN and NBER jordi.gali@upf.edu Mark Gertler Department of Economics New York University 269 Mercer Street,7th Floor New York,NY 10003 and NBER mark.gertler@nyu.edu
Macroeconomic Modeling for Monetary Policy Evaluation Jordi Galí and Mark Gertler NBER Working Paper No. 13542 October 2007 JEL No. E31,E32,E52 ABSTRACT We describe some of the main features of the recent vintage macroeconomic models used for monetary policy evaluation. We point to some of the key differences with respect to the earlier generation of macro models, and highlight the insights for policy that these new frameworks have to offer. Our discussion emphasizes two key aspects of the new models: the significant role of expectations of future policy actions in the monetary transmission mechanism, and the importance for the central bank of tracking of the flexible price equilibrium values of the natural levels of output and the real interest rate. We argue that both features have important implications for the conduct of monetary policy. Jordi Galí Centre de Recerca en Economia Internacional (CREI) Ramon Trias Fargas 25 08005 Barcelona SPAIN and NBER jordi.gali@upf.edu Mark Gertler Department of Economics New York University 269 Mercer Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10003 and NBER mark.gertler@nyu.edu
Quantitative macroeconomic modeling fell out of favor during the 1970s for two related reasons.First,some of the existing models,like the Wharton Econometric model and the Brookings Model,failed spectacularly to fore- cast the stagflation of the 1970s..Second,leading macroeconomists leveled harsh criticisms of these frameworks.Lucas (1976),and Sargent (1981),for example,argued that the absence of an optimization-based approach to the development of the structural equations meant that the estimated model co- efficients were likely not invariant to shifts in policy regimes or other types of structural changes.Similarly,Sims (1980)argued that the absence of convincing identifying assumptions to sort out the vast simultaneity among macroeconomic variables meant that one could have little confidence that the parameter estimates would be stable across different regimes.These power- ful critiques made clear why econometric models fit largely on statistical relationships from a previous era did not survive the structural changes of 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s,many central banks continued to use reduced form statistical models to produce forecasts of the economy that presumed no structural change,but they did so knowing that these models could not be used with any degree of confidence to generate forecasts of the results of policy changes.Thus,monetary policy-makers turned to a combination of instinct,judgment,and raw hunches to assess the implications of different policy paths for the economy. Within the last decade,however,quantitative macroeconomic frameworks for monetary policy evaluation have made a comeback.What facilitated the development of these frameworks were two independent literatures that 1
Quantitative macroeconomic modeling fell out of favor during the 1970s for two related reasons. First, some of the existing models, like the Wharton Econometric model and the Brookings Model, failed spectacularly to forecast the stagáation of the 1970s..Second, leading macroeconomists leveled harsh criticisms of these frameworks. Lucas (1976), and Sargent (1981), for example, argued that the absence of an optimization-based approach to the development of the structural equations meant that the estimated model coe¢ cients were likely not invariant to shifts in policy regimes or other types of structural changes. Similarly, Sims (1980) argued that the absence of convincing identifying assumptions to sort out the vast simultaneity among macroeconomic variables meant that one could have little conÖdence that the parameter estimates would be stable across di§erent regimes. These powerful critiques made clear why econometric models Öt largely on statistical relationships from a previous era did not survive the structural changes of 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, many central banks continued to use reduced form statistical models to produce forecasts of the economy that presumed no structural change, but they did so knowing that these models could not be used with any degree of conÖdence to generate forecasts of the results of policy changes. Thus, monetary policy-makers turned to a combination of instinct, judgment, and raw hunches to assess the implications of di§erent policy paths for the economy. Within the last decade, however, quantitative macroeconomic frameworks for monetary policy evaluation have made a comeback. What facilitated the development of these frameworks were two independent literatures that 1
emerged in response to the downfall of traditional macroeconomic modelling: New Keynesian theory and real business cycle theory.1 The New Keynesian paradigm arose in the 1980s as an attempt to provide microfoundations for key Keynesian concepts such as the inefficiency of aggregate fluctuations, nominal price stickiness,and the non-neutrality of money (e.g.Mankiw and Romer (1991)).The models of this literature,however,were typically sta- tic and designed mainly for qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis. By contrast,real business cycle theory,which was developing concurrently, demonstrated how it was possible to build quantitative macroeconomic mod- els exclusively from the "bottom up"-that is,from explicit optimizing be- havior at the individual level (e.g.Prescott (1986))These models,however, abstracted from monetary and financial factors and thus could not address the issues that we just described.In this context,the new frameworks reflect a natural synthesis of the New Keynesian and real business cycle approaches. Overall,the progress has been remarkable.A decade ago it would have been unimaginable that a tightly structured macroeconometric model would have much hope of capturing real world data,let alone of being of any use in the monetary policy process.However,frameworks have been recently devel- oped that forecast as well as the reduced form models of an earlier era (for example,Christiano,Eichenbaum,and Evans (2005),Smets and Wouters (2003,2006)).Because these models have explicit theoretical foundations, they can also be used for counterfactual policy experiments.A tell-tale sign that these frameworks have crossed a critical threshold for credibility is their widespread use at central banks across the globe.While these models are 1For references to NK theory see,Mankiw and Romer(1991).For references to RBC theory,see Prescott (1986). 2
emerged in response to the downfall of traditional macroeconomic modelling: New Keynesian theory and real business cycle theory.1 The New Keynesian paradigm arose in the 1980s as an attempt to provide microfoundations for key Keynesian concepts such as the ine¢ ciency of aggregate áuctuations, nominal price stickiness, and the non-neutrality of money (e.g. Mankiw and Romer (1991)). The models of this literature, however, were typically static and designed mainly for qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis. By contrast, real business cycle theory, which was developing concurrently, demonstrated how it was possible to build quantitative macroeconomic models exclusively from the îbottom upîñ that is, from explicit optimizing behavior at the individual level (e.g. Prescott (1986)) These models, however, abstracted from monetary and Önancial factors and thus could not address the issues that we just described. In this context, the new frameworks reáect a natural synthesis of the New Keynesian and real business cycle approaches. Overall, the progress has been remarkable. A decade ago it would have been unimaginable that a tightly structured macroeconometric model would have much hope of capturing real world data, let alone of being of any use in the monetary policy process. However, frameworks have been recently developed that forecast as well as the reduced form models of an earlier era (for example, Christiano, Eichenbaum, and Evans (2005), Smets and Wouters (2003, 2006)). Because these models have explicit theoretical foundations, they can also be used for counterfactual policy experiments. A tell-tale sign that these frameworks have crossed a critical threshold for credibility is their widespread use at central banks across the globe. While these models are 1For references to NK theory see, Mankiw and Romer (1991). For references to RBC theory, see Prescott (1986). 2
nowhere close to removing the informal dimension of the monetary policy process,they are injecting an increased discipline to thinking and communi- cation about monetary policy. To be sure,there were some important developments in between the tra- ditional macroeconometric models and the most recent vintage.Frameworks such as Taylor(1979)and Fuhrer and Moore(1995)incorporated several im- portant features that were missing from the earlier vintage of models:(i)the Phelps/Friedman natural rate hypothesis of no long-run tradeoff between in- flation and unemployment,and(ii)rational formation of expectations.At the same time,however,the structural relations of these models typically did not evolve from individual optimization.The net effect was to make these frame- works susceptible to some of the same criticisms that led to the demise of the earlier generation of models(see,e.g.Sargent,1981).It is also relevant that over the last twenty years there have been significant advances in dynamic optimization and dynamic general equilibrium theory.To communicate with the profession at large,particularly the younger generations of scholars,it was perhaps ultimately necessary to develop applied macroeconomic models using the same tools and techniques that have become standard in modern economic analysis. Overall,our goal in this paper is to describe the main elements of this new vintage of macroeconomic models.Among other things,we describe the key differences with respect to the earlier generation of macro models.In doing so,we highlight the insights for policy that these new frameworks have to offer.In particular,we will emphasize two key implications of these new frameworks. 3
nowhere close to removing the informal dimension of the monetary policy process, they are injecting an increased discipline to thinking and communication about monetary policy. To be sure, there were some important developments in between the traditional macroeconometric models and the most recent vintage. Frameworks such as Taylor (1979) and Fuhrer and Moore (1995) incorporated several important features that were missing from the earlier vintage of models: (i) the Phelps/Friedman natural rate hypothesis of no long-run tradeo§ between in- áation and unemployment, and (ii) rational formation of expectations. At the same time, however, the structural relations of these models typically did not evolve from individual optimization. The net e§ect was to make these frameworks susceptible to some of the same criticisms that led to the demise of the earlier generation of models (see, e.g. Sargent, 1981). It is also relevant that over the last twenty years there have been signiÖcant advances in dynamic optimization and dynamic general equilibrium theory. To communicate with the profession at large, particularly the younger generations of scholars, it was perhaps ultimately necessary to develop applied macroeconomic models using the same tools and techniques that have become standard in modern economic analysis. Overall, our goal in this paper is to describe the main elements of this new vintage of macroeconomic models. Among other things, we describe the key di§erences with respect to the earlier generation of macro models. In doing so, we highlight the insights for policy that these new frameworks have to o§er. In particular, we will emphasize two key implications of these new frameworks. 3