The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of time varying monetary policy targets on the asymmetric preferences hypothesis for US monetary policy. Recent literature suggests that monetary policy responds asymmetrically to fluctuations in either an output gap or unemployment gap. Most of these studies impose the assumption of constant inflation and interest rate targets. This paper models both of these target rates as time varying parameters using a nested specification to test for constancy in the target rates. Additionally, the paper examines the estimation strategy needed to estimate all of the policy maker’s structural or deep parameters for the asymmetric preferences model. The model is estimated via maximum likelihood using an iterative Kalman filter. Results show that asymmetric policy response over the output gap disappears for all sample periods when the joint underlying dynamics of inflation and interest rate data are accounted for. Additionally, the results indicate that policy target rates are not well represented by constants for all sample periods examined. As a whole, the empirical exercise suggests that conclusions about monetary policy behavior might be sensitive to modeling assumptions about target policy rates.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ruge-Murcia does estimate a multiple equation model, but the model lacks enough identifying restrictions for direct estimation of all structural parameters.
A full derivation of these equations can be provided by the author upon request or can be found by the sources listed above.
This statement implies that the limit is taken after FOC’s are taken. Otherwise the output gap would not enter into the policy maker’s reaction function at all.
Additionally, as we will see the unobserved inflation target is an element in the state equation which is only linearly and not quadratically identified in the dynamic linear model.
This is a feature of the baseline dynamic New-Keynesian model. Real money holdings enter the utility function for the consumer in a linear fashion. Thus, monetary policy does not influence the consumer’s FOCs for consumption, labor, or bonds.
Here the term “suboptimal” describes the level of output and inflation observed in the economy as a result of policy action, not in the mathematical sense of the word.
Details on model derivation, the formulation of the state-space model, and the estimation algorithm are available from the author upon request.
Additionally, Surico does not impose symmetry over the inflationary gap as is done for the reasons outlined in Sect. 2. It is possible that in small samples this could influence the estimates of \(\gamma \) for that time period.
This is calculated using the estimates from Column 2 of Table 1.
Ahrend Rudiger (2010) Monetary ease: a factor behind financial crises? Some evidence from OECD Countries. Econ Open Access Open Assess E J 4(2012-10):1–30. doi:10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2010-1
Barro R, Gordon D (1983) A positive theory of monetary policy in a natural rate model. J Polit Econ 91:589–610
Cassou SP, Scott CP, Vázquez J (2012) Optimal monetary policy with asymmetric preferences for output. Econ Lett 117:654–656
Calvo GA (1983) Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework. J Monet Econ 12(3):383–398
Cukierman A, Gerlach S (2003) The inflation bias revisited: theory and some international evidence. Manch Sch 71(5):541–565
Dossche M, Everaert G (2005) Measuring Inflation Persistence: a structural time series approach. European Central Bank, Eurosystem inflation persistence network, Working Paper Series, No. 495
Doyle M, Falk B (2010) Do asymmetric central bank preferences help explain observed inflation outcomes? J Macroecon 32(2):527–540
Gali J, Gertler M (1999) Inflation dynamics: a structural econometric analysis. J Monet Econ 44(2):195–222
Gali J (2007) Monetary policy, inflation, and the business cycle: an introduction to the New Keynesian framework. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Hamilton JD (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Ireland PN (1999) Does the time-consistency problem explain the behavior of inflation in the United States? J Monet Econ 44:279–291
Ireland PN (2007) Changes in the federal reserve’s inflation target: causes and consequences. J Money Credit Bank 39(8):1851–1882
Kahn GA (2010) Taylor rule deviations and financial imbalances. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City economic review, second quarter, pp 63–99
Klein P (2000) Using the generalized schur form to solve a multivariate linear rational expectations model. J Econ Dyn Control 24:140523
Kydland FE, Prescott EC (1977) Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans. J Polit Econ 85(3):473–491
Nobay AR, Peel DA (2003) Optimal discretionary monetary policy in a model of asymmetric central bank preferences. Econ J 113(489):657–665
Rabanal P, Rubio-Ramírez JF (2005) Comparing New Keynesian models of the business cycle: a Bayesian approach. J Monet Econ 52(6):1151–1166
Ruge-Murcia FJ (2003a) Does the Barro–Gordon model explain the behavior of US inflation? A reexamination of the empirical evidence. J Monet Econ 50(6):1375–1390
Ruge-Murcia FJ (2003b) Inflation targeting under asymmetric preferences. J Money credit Bank 35(5):763–785
Ruge-Murcia FJ (2004) The inflation bias when the central bank targets the natural rate of unemployment. Eur Econ Rev 48(1):91–107
Scott CP (2015) Asymmetric preferences and monetary policy deviations. Unpublished manuscript
Surico P (2003) Measuring the time-inconsistency of US monetary policy. European Central Bank, Working Paper Series 291
Surico P (2007) The fed’s monetary policy rule and US inflation: the case of asymmetric preferences. J Econ Dyn Control 31(1):305–324
Taylor JB (1993) Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester conference series on public policy vol 39, pp 95–214
Taylor JB (2007) Housing and monetary policy. In: Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy, proceedings of the federal reserve bank of Kansas City symposium, Jackson Hole, September
Taylor JB (2012) Monetary policy rules work and discretion doesn’t: a tale of two eras. J Money Credit Bank 44(6):1017–1032 (2012)
Varian HR (1974) A Bayesian approach to real estate assessment. In: Feinberg SE, Zellner A (eds) Studies in Bayesian econometrics and statistics in honor of Leonard J. Savage. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 195–208
Walsh CE (2003) Monetary theory and policy, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Woodford M (2003) Interest and prices: foundations of a theory of monetary policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Zellner A (1986) Bayesian estimation and prediction using asymmetric loss functions. J Am Stat Assoc 81(394):446–451
The author wishes to thank two anonymous referees for their exceedingly helpful comments and suggestions.
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, C.P. Are central bank preferences asymmetric when policy targets vary over time?. Empir Econ 51, 577–589 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-015-1021-0
- Optimal monetary policy
- Asymmetric preferences
- Kalman filter
- Time varying parameter