Optimal Monetary Policy With Staggered Wage And Price Contracts

We formulate an optimizing-agent model in which both labor and product markets exhibit monopolistic competition and staggered nominal contracts. The unconditional expectation of average household utility can be expressed in terms of the unconditional variances of the output gap, price inflation, and wage inflation. Monetary policy cannot replicate the Pareto-optimal equilibrium that would occur under completely flexible wages and prices; that is, the model exhibits a tradeoff between stabilizing the output gap, price inflation, and wage inflation. The Pareto optimum is attainable only if either wages or prices are completely flexible. For reasonable calibrations of the model, we characterize the optimal policy rule. Furthermore, strict price inflation targeting is clearly suboptimal, whereas rules that also respond to either the output gap or wage inflation are nearly optimal.

I analyze optimal monetary policy in an economy with search and matching frictions in the labor market and staggered nominal wage and price contracts. In this framework, as opposed to the standard New Keynesian model, preset nominal wages need not have any effect on existing employment relationships. However, staggered bargaining of nominal wages distorts aggregate job creation and creates inefficient dispersion in hiring rates across firms. Targeting zero inflation (the optimal policy in the standard New Keynesian model) only magnifies these distortions. The optimal policy allows for non-zero inflation in response to real shocks, so as to reduce the rigidity of real wages. Quantitatively, the case against price stability as the sole goal of monetary policy turns out to be important.

Chari, Kehoe, and McGratten's (1998) finding that a standard monetary business cycle model with staggered price setting is unable to generate sufficiently persistent real effects of monetary shocks has engendered a growing literature aimed at developing alternative mechanisms for producing greater persistence. The most popular approach at present in this literature appears to be one in which staggered wage contracts are used as either an alternative or a complement to a staggered price mechanism. This is informed by recent research by Andersen (1998) and Huang and Liu (1998) which finds that the staggered wage model, despite its superficial similarity to the staggered price setup, incorporates a very different microstructure that implies substantially more real persistence. This paper argues that these authors' findings rely heavily on the assumption that identical inputs are used by all firms, and demonstrates that, by assuming firm-specific factor inputs the staggered price model is as capable as the staggered wage model of generating persistent real responses to monetary shocks.

In an estimated two-sector New-Keynesian model with durable and nondurable goods, an inverse relationship between sectoral labor mobility and the optimal weight the central bank should attach to durables inflation arises. The combination of nominal wage stickiness and limited labor mobility leads to a nonzero optimal weight for durables inflation even if durables prices were fully flexible. These results survive alternative calibrations and interestrate rules and point toward a non-negligible role of sectoral labor mobility for the conduct of monetary policy.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. This paper studies how to design simple loss functions for central banks, as parsimonious approximations to social welfare. We show, both analytically and quantitatively, that simple loss functions should feature a high weight on measures of economic activity, sometimes even larger than the weight on inflation. Two main factors drive our result. First, stabilizing economic activity also stabilizes other welfare relevant variables. Second, the estimated model features mitigated inflation distortions due to a low elasticity of substitution between monopolistic goods and a low interest rate sensitivity of demand. The result holds up in the presence of measurement errors, with large shocks that generate a trade-off between stabilizing inflation and resource utilization, and also when ensuring a low probability of hitting the zero lower bound on interest rates.

Over the past fifteen years, a significant number of industrialized and middle-income countries have adopted inflation targeting as a framework for monetary policymaking. As the name suggests, in such inflation-targeting regimes, the central bank is responsible for achieving a publicly announced target for the inflation rate. While the objective of controlling inflation enjoys wide support among both academic experts and policymakers, and while the countries that have followed this model have generally experienced good macroeconomic outcomes, many important questions about inflation targeting remain. In Inflation Targeting, a distinguished group of contributors explores the many underexamined dimensions of inflation targeting—its potential, its successes, and its limitations—from both a theoretical and an empirical standpoint, and for both developed and emerging economies. The volume opens with a discussion of the optimal formulation of inflation-targeting policy and continues with a debate about the desirability of such a model for the United States. The concluding chapters discuss the special problems of inflation targeting in emerging markets, including the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary.

"In a stylized DSGE model with an energy sector, the optimal policy response to an adverse energy supply shock implies a rise in core inflation, a larger rise in headline inflation, and a decline in wage inflation. The optimal policy is well-approximated by policies that stabilize the output gap, but also by a wide array of "dual mandate" policies that are not overly aggressive in stabilizing core inflation. Finally, policies that react to a forecast of headline inflation following a temporary energy shock imply markedly different effects than policies that react to a forecast of core, with the former inducing greater volatility in core inflation and the output gap"--Federal Reserve Board web site.