Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

“Core” and “Periphery” in a Monetary Union: A Macroeconomic Policy Game

  • 168 Accesses

  • 14 Citations


We develop a dynamic game model of a two-country monetary union to study strategic interactions between macroeconomic policy makers, namely the central bank and governments. In this union, the governments of participating countries pursue national goals when deciding on fiscal policies, whereas the common central bank’s monetary policy aims at union-wide objective variables. The union considered is asymmetric, consisting of a core, with lower initial public debt, and a periphery, with higher initial public debt. For a symmetric demand shock, we derive numerical solutions of the dynamic game between the governments and the central bank using the OPTGAME algorithm. We show that mildly active cooperative countercyclical policies dominate noncooperative solutions and a scenario of no policy intervention. Optimal policies call for a brief expansionary action to bolster the effects on output and a return to a small fiscal primary surplus as soon as the crisis is over until the targeted level of public debt is reached.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. Arghyrou, M. G., & Tsoukalas, J. D. (2010). The Greek debt crisis: Likely causes, mechanics and outcomes. CESifo Working Paper no. 3266. Munich: CESifo.

  2. Başar, T., & Olsder, G. J. (1999). Dynamic noncooperative game theory (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: SIAM.

  3. Behrens, D. A. & Neck, R. (2003). Approximating equilibrium solutions for multi-player difference games using the OPTGAME algorithm. Working Paper, Klagenfurt University.

  4. Dockner, E., et al. (2000). Differential games in economics and management science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  5. Haber, G., Neck, R., & McKibbin, W. J. (2002). Global implications of monetary and fiscal policy rules in the EMU. Open Economies Review, 13(4), 363–379.

  6. Miller, M., & Salmon, M. (1985). Policy coordination and dynamic games. In W. H. Buiter & R. C. Marston (Eds.), International economic policy coordination (pp. 184–213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  7. Neck, R., & Behrens, D. A. (2009). A macroeconomic policy game for a monetary union with adaptive expectations. Atlantic Economic Journal, 37, 335–349.

  8. Petit, M. L. (1990). Control theory and dynamic games in economic policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  9. Pohjola, M. (1986). Applications of dynamic game theory to macroeconomics. In T. Başar (Ed.), Dynamic games and applications in economics (pp. 103–133). Berlin: Springer.

  10. van Aarle, B., Di Bartolomeo, G., Engwerda, J., & Plasmans, J. (2002). Monetary and fiscal policy design in the EMU: An overview. Open Economies Review, 13(4), 321–340.

Download references


This research was financially supported by the Jubilaeumsfonds of the Austrian National Bank (project no. 12166).

Author information

Correspondence to Reinhard Neck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blueschke, D., Neck, R. “Core” and “Periphery” in a Monetary Union: A Macroeconomic Policy Game. Int Adv Econ Res 17, 334–346 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-011-9303-6

Download citation


  • Monetary union
  • Asymmetric union
  • Dynamic game
  • Numerical solutions
  • Nash equilibrium
  • Pareto solution
  • Fiscal policy
  • Monetary policy
  • Policy cooperation