No convergence in the Caribbean

I have always found the Caribbean fascinating because it is a microcosm of the world, with tiny countries trying to get a workable government without the economies of scale the rest of the world enjoys. But as a readers of Economics research, the presence of this myriad of too-small countries lead to many frustrations, as they bias results in cross-country regressions. But sometimes, these micro-countries can be useful for research.

Roland Craigwell and Alain Maurin use them to study whether there is convergence in the Caribbean. It is well established that there is no convergence on world-wide country data, but it is very visible on subsets, such as US states. In the later case, all US states are under the same currency and roughly the same laws and government systems, there is some cross-state redistribution and no trade barriers. As you drop these features, which one gets you lack of convergence. In the case of the Caribbean, there is a partial monetary and trade union, laws and governments are more dissimilar than in the US and there is no redistribution. And as Craigwell and Maurin show, that is sufficient to make convergence disappear. Once more, it looks like once more institutions and to a lesser extent globalization are the keys to development for the poorest economies.

Monetary and fiscal policy cooperation in a liquidity trap

We are living interesting times in terms of macroeconomic policy: the world faces big shocks and substantial challenges, and many current circumstances have no historical precedents. This means that policy makers cannot draw from experience and need to invent new policies from somewhere better than their guts. And after a few hesitations, theory is now in much better shape to answer questions from policy makers. For example, what should one do when there is a liquidity trap in a globalized economy, especially if the trap itself is globalized?

David Cook and Michael Devereux show how, and it borders on a political miracle. Not only does one need to get the cooperation of fiscal and monetary authorities (something the US is not close to achieving) but one needs the cooperation across countries even if it entails some costs to the "winners" (something the Chinese have so far refused and the Swiss recently abandoned).

Specifically, Cook and Devereux show that with so many countries currently with negative real interest rates, we have a worldwide liquidity trap. In an open economy, the policy prescription differs from a closed economy. If there is a negative demand shock, fiscal policy needs of course to raise aggregate demand, but with a global economy, this can come from anywhere in the world and thus a coordinated fiscal policy is due. But to channel the impulse to the relevant countries, monetary policy coordination is necessary to raise interest rates in the foreign countries, even if they are in a liquidity trap. And this takes some serious courage. One can always dream.

Public consumption and the business cycle

One aspect of government purchases the current crisis has highlighted is how volatile they can be. Quite obviously, they are influenced by politics, to the point of complete reversal between massive spending and severe belt-tightening within months as in the US and the UK. But there could also be a more systematic component that is linked to the business cycle. After all, the government may be trying to improve the welfare of its constituents and for example substitute public consumption for lacking private consumption, or the same for investment.



Ruediger Bachmann and Jinhui Bai look at this using an augmented real business cycle model. They claim that 25-40% of the variance of public consumption can be accounted for by shocks to total factor productivity once implementation lags and costs of public consumption, as well as taste shocks to public vs. private consumption. I am no particular fan of taste shocks, as they are the symptoms of a modeler who is giving up on trying to explain something and simply equates the error term in the Euler equation to a shock. Then much is driven by how this shock is calibrated, in this case to match a four year electoral cycle and some data moments. When I think about shocks in this context, I think indeed about who is in power to decide on public expenditures. But that is not completely exogenous. Indeed, the state of the economy has an impact on who gets elected or reelected. And this can be calibrated without trying to match the data moments one is trying to explain.

What if the US looses its reserve currency privilege?

Since the Bretton Woods agreement in 1945, the United States have enjoyed the so-called "Exhorbitant Privilege." During the fixed exchange rate regime, the US could conduct monetary policy without regard to what was happening in other countries. The US dollar was a reserve currency, which also helped the US maintain low interest rates and a guarantee that US dollars (and Treasury bonds) would always find a buyer. With flexible exchange rates, not much has changed. But with the recent shenanigans in a Congress that considered reneging on its debt, the likelihood of this advantage changing has dramatically increased. What would the consequences of the loss of the Exhorbitant Privilege be?



Wenli Cheng and Dingsheng Zhang study this scenario using a general equilibrium model where a peripheral country (say, the Asian economies) pegs its currency to the money of a central country (say, the United States), the latter being used as the vehicle currency for international trade. In addition, the foreign exchange reserves of the periphery are invested in government bonds of the center. This means that no matter what current account deficit of the center, it is always financed by the periphery. Yet the center may be tempted to inflate it away. This limitless and to some extend free borrowing is the Exhorbitant Privilege.



Now remove it by assuming that the periphery does not want to invest in the center, either because it views the Treasury bonds are excessively risky or because it does not peg to the dollar any more. This would lead to a dramatic readjustment of the terms of trade to favor the tradable sector of the center. This decpraciation of the dollar would be more pronounced of the center is incapable of raising taxes and finances its debt with inflation. This already all sounds familiar.

Policy risk and the business cycle

The US economy seems stuck in its tracks, and many blame uncertainty about future public policy, including me. Indeed, private firms are currently sitting on a lot of cash and are making very good profits, yet they are not investing or hiring. This really looks like a wait-and-see game. But it this justification well-founded or is it just a cheap excuse to justify higher than usual profits in the face of high unemployment?

Benjamin Born and Johannes Pfeifer put some structure into these arguments by taking a standard New Keynesian model and adding uncertainty about monetary and fiscal policy. They measure this by looking at tax rates and monetary policy shocks with time-varying volatility. Previous literature already looked at the impact of aggregate uncertainty, which policy makers can do little about. But policy uncertainty is another matter. And there is hope, as Born and Pfeifer show that the impact of policy uncertainty is not that important (but much larger than uncertainty about productivity shocks) thanks to monetary policy reaction through a Taylor Rule. So that is somewhat reassuring, but then the size of the current policy uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than when this paper was written, and monetary policy is bound by non-negative nominal interest rates.

Razor innovation in macroeconomics

Macroeconomics is sometimes like Gillette razors. There is regularly an innovative razor that happens to have more blades than the previous one. And once it gets out of hand, the new razor goes back to fundamentals and has only one blade, before the cycle starts again. In macroeconomics, there was this fad of adding more an more shocks to models until everything became very confusing and unidentifiable. So we returned to simple models (Occam's razor was the innovation) that became more powerful because of the presence of a market friction. Now, these search frictions are appearing everywhere, one-by-one or in pairs, and the latest generation of models has three frictions.

In a pair of papers, Etienne Wasmer alone and then with Nicolas Petrosky-Nadeau introduces search frictions on labor, credit and goods markets. The first is more of an exercise of style, showing it can be elegantly solved in steady-state thanks to block-recursiveness. The second paper is more interesting, as it looks at the dynamic properties of the model and shows that is can better account for the persistence of fluctuations in the data (what frictions are good at) and the volatility of labor flows. Interesting results, especially in the light of the pronounced lag in the recovery of employment in the US these days.

I am waiting for the four-friction model now.

The welfare gain from inflation targeting

It is rather well accepted that transparency is preferred for policy, because it anchors better expectations, people generally do not like uncertainty, and discretion can lead to adverse biases compared to set policy rules. Yet, the United States exhibit little transparancy, with the Federal Reserve being one of the few western central banks not to declare some explicit policy target, and fiscal policy being as uncertain as ever. That would not be a big deal if the welfare costs were low, but you can think that there are high and in the case of fiscal policy are currenctly holding back the recovery.

Giorgio Di Giorgio and Guido Traficante are taking a closer look at the welfare benefits of inflation targeting. For this they use a model where households observe policy interest rates and do not know whether their changes are due to reactions to output gaps or shocks to the inflation target. Households are sophisticated, they use a signal extraction device to estimate the latent, unobservable variable. Yet, they still face substantial costs from the uncertainty. Money is not neutral because of Rotemberg pricing, a variant of Calvo pricing. Oh well, I guess this is what you need to do to get a result with some bite.

Households know there is a policy rule that determines the interest rate from the output gap (unobservable) and the inflation target (stochastic and persistent) as well as known preference and cost-push shocks. In other words, households know a lot about the structure of the economy and the shocks, except for the policy shock, but then somehow cannot figure out what the output gap is. The central bank can, though, but then has for obscure reasons a trembling hand when it comes to set its inflation target. That seems to be quite the opposite of what I would have thought: everyone is confused about the output gap, and only the central bank knows what the inflation target is. Instead of a story of households trying to disentangle output gap and inflation target from the interest rate signal, one would have a story of a central banker not quite sure what to do given the circumstances. Too bad, this could have been an interesting paper.