Adaptation and central banking

Abstract

What or who governs central bank decisions? Most considerations focus on motivations. Instead, we consider the extent to which specific behaviors have adaptive value in the context of central banking. From that perspective, poor decisions are not the product of poor motivations. They are, instead, a product of the poor institutions within which central bank decision makers operate.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    We employ the terms ‘selection’ and ‘adaptation’ throughout. By selection, we mean the filtering process of institutions. By adaptation, we mean the durable properties of entities that remain after the filtering process has weeded out entities lacking those properties. Hence, a durable property is said to have ‘adaptive value’ if it is selected for in the filtering process.

  2. 2.

    Although Alchian (1950, p. 212) articulates his view in the context of profit maximization by firms, he maintains that it applies equally to utility maximization by consumers.

  3. 3.

    A similar point was raised in the debate between (Becker 1962, 1963; Kirzner 1962, 1963) concerning the rationality postulate.

  4. 4.

    Foreshadowing Friedman’s (1953) famous as-if argument, Alchian (1950, p. 211) held that “the analytical concepts usually associated with such behaviors are retained because they are not dependent upon such motivation or foresight.”

  5. 5.

    One might reasonably argue that the rationality postulate only has empirical content in the context of an agent’s perceived problem-environment. See Vanberg (2004).

  6. 6.

    Havrilesky (1994) surveys the early literature. See also Burns and White (2017).

  7. 7.

    The rotation is such that one president from Boston, Philadelphia, or Richmond; Cleveland or Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, or Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, or San Francisco always sit on the open market committee. Although none can vote, the seven out-of-rotation regional Reserve Bank presidents attend and participate in discussions at FOMC meetings.

  8. 8.

    Although Reserve Bank presidents are not bound by term limits, they are subject to mandatory retirement at age 65. If permitted by the Bank’s board, a president appointed after turning 55 can serve for 10 years or aging out at 70, whichever occurs first.

  9. 9.

    The effect is perhaps even stronger for positions of Chair and Vice Chair, insofar as they play more important roles in setting the agenda or building consensus. Along those lines, Kane (1988) models the president’s decision to appoint the Chair as a financial portfolio investment.

  10. 10.

    This is perhaps less important in recent years, when monetary policy has been conducted by varying the interest on excess reserves and the rate paid on reverse repurchase agreements. Both of these rates are determined exclusively by members of the Board of Governors. Jordan and Luther (2018) argue that the Fed’s new operating regime reduces its independence.

  11. 11.

    Our approach would seem to suggest that, if the President has the right ideas about maximizing social welfare, he will select central bankers with the right ideas about maximizing social welfare and the social-welfare-maximizing monetary policy will be adopted. However, it is important to remember that the President also is a product of selection mechanisms—and it is not obvious why one should assume that a candidate with the right ideas about maximizing social welfare will be selected as President. Indeed, a large literature following (Riker 1962) suggests that a President who concentrates benefits and disperses costs is more likely to prevail.

  12. 12.

    We do not mean to imply that the appointment process is the only mechanism at play. For example, Shughart and Tollison (1983) consider the tradeoff Fed officials face between padding their budgets and purchasing autonomy from the Treasury by remitting more seigniorage. Grier (1991, 1996) finds that monetary policy is affected by the political views of the leadership on congressional oversight committees. Hess and Shelton (2016) find that, at least prior to 1982, the Fed adjusted monetary policy in response to bills credibly threatening its power. See also Kvasnicka (2005).

  13. 13.

    We follow Wagner (1977) in focusing on seigniorage rather than more traditional accounts of a political business cycle, since the former allows incumbents to concentrate benefits through targeted spending efforts in swing districts as opposed to a broad-based reduction in unemployment or increase in output.

  14. 14.

    Even that conclusion is debatable. If implemented, the oft-touted Friedman (1969) rule likely would generate mild deflation. See also Sanchez (2012).

  15. 15.

    Colussi (2018) finds that around 43% of articles published in top general-interest economics journals are authored by scholars with an observable social tie to an editor of the journal at the time of publication.

  16. 16.

    Much the same could be said about the academic hiring process, wherein committee members are more likely to recommend and departments are more likely to extend offers to those candidates who correspond more closely to the prevailing conception of scientific merit.

  17. 17.

    For example, Posner (2017) argues that, while the Fed acted without legal authority, its response was needed to resolve the crisis.

  18. 18.

    Belongia (2007) argues that the public cannot monitor the Fed effectively. Mayer (2000) considers the extent to which academic research influences monetary policy. See also McCallum (1999).

  19. 19.

    Humphrey (1989) provides a more complete summary of Bagehot’s rules.

  20. 20.

    Much disagreement exists, to be sure. For example, Kaufman (1991) argues that central banks should supply general liquidity through open market operations rather than specific liquidity to individual financial institutions. Nonetheless, Bagehot’s classic lender-of-last-resort doctrine functions as a widely accepted baseline, from which departures might be considered.

  21. 21.

    Our statement is, perhaps, a more charitable interpretation than is warranted. Blau et al. (2013) and Blau (2017) find that the Fed’s lending decisions were influenced by political factors. See also Ramirez (2011).

  22. 22.

    There probably never has been a tighter congruence between the actions of a Fed chair and his academic work. In a series of influential papers, Bernanke (1981, 1983) argued that the severity of the Great Depression could not be accounted for by the initial collapse in liquidity alone; that the failure of banks resulted in a breakdown of financial intermediation, further straining the system. Bernanke’s public remarks (Bernanke 2008, 2009a, b) make clear that he feared a similar breakdown in the early days of the crisis; that the Fed’s unprecedented actions were intended to fight contagion.

  23. 23.

    Anderson et al. (1988) suggest the Fed’s monetary policy response in the Great Depression expanded its control over the financial system. Shughart (2011) compares the policy responses in the Great Depression and Great Recession.

  24. 24.

    In recent years, for example, the Fed has acted as if its 2% inflation target were a ceiling. Fed officials seem unwilling to risk 1970s-level inflation rates, despite the potential benefits of returning to the price level’s original trend.

References

  1. Alchian, A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, G. M., Shughart, W. F., & Tollison, R. D. (1988). A public choice theory of the great contraction. Public Choice, 59(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Auerbach, R. D. (1985). Politics and the federal reserve. Contemporary Economic Policy, 3(5), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, M. J. (1956). The welfare cost of inflationary finance. Journal of Political Economy, 64(2), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker, G. S. (1962). Irrational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 70(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker, G. S. (1963). Rational action and economic theory: A reply to I. Kirzner. Journal of Political Economy, 71(1), 82–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Belongia, M. T. (2007). Opaque rather than transparent: Why the public cannot monitor monetary policy. Public Choice, 133(3), 259–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernanke, B. S. (1981). Bankruptcy, liquidity, and recession. American Economic Review, 71(2), 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bernanke, B. S. (1983). Nonmonetary effects of the financial crisis in the propagation of the Great Depression. American Economic Review, 73(3), 257–276.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bernanke, B. S. (2008). Federal reserve policies in the financial crisis. In Board of governors of the federal reserve system, Speech greater Austin chamber of commerce, Austin, TX. December 1.

  11. Bernanke, B. S. (2009a). Reflections on a year of crisis. In Board of governors of the federal reserve system, speech federal reserve bank of Kansas City’s annual economic symposium, Jackson Hole, WY, August 21.

  12. Bernanke, B. S. (2009b). Regulatory reform. In Board of governors of the federal reserve system, Testimony. Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 1.

  13. Bernanke, B. S. (2012). The federal reserve’s response to the financial crisis, In Board of governors of the federal reserve system, Lecture 3. Lecture. George Washington University School of Business, Washington, D.C., March 27.

  14. Bernanke, B. S. (2013). Opening remarks by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke at the ceremony commemorating the centennial of the Federal Reserve Act. In Board of governors of the federal reserve system, December 16.

  15. Bernanke, B. S. (2015). The courage to act: A memoir of a crisis and its aftermath. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blau, B. M. (2017). Lobbying, political connections and emergency lending by the federal reserve. Public Choice, 172(3–4), 333–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blau, B. M., Brough, T. J., & Thomas, D. W. (2013). Corporate lobbying, political connections, and the bailout of banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(8), 3007–3017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buchanan, J. M. (1987). The constitution of economic policy. American Economic Review, 77(3), 243–250.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Burns, S. A., & White, L. H. (2017). Monetary policy without romance: The political economy of the modern Fed. In Working paper.

  20. Chappell, H. W, Jr., Havrilesky, T. M., & McGregor, R. R. (1993). Partisan monetary policies: Presidential influence through the power of appointment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(1), 185–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Colussi, T. (2018). Social ties in academia: A friend is a treasure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(1), 45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3–43.

  23. Friedman, M. (1969). The optimum quantity of money. The optimum quantity of money and other essays. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Friedman, M. (1982). Monetary policy: Theory and practice. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 14(1), 98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grier, K. B. (1991). Congressional influence on U.S. monetary policy: An empirical test. Journal of Monetary Economics, 28(2), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grier, K. B. (1996). Congressional oversight committee influence on US monetary policy revisited. Journal of Monetary Economics, 38(3), 571–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Havrilesky, T. (1994). The political economy of monetary policy. European Journal of Political Economy, 10(1), 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2018). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. In NBER Working Paper No. w25093.

  29. Hess, G. D., & Shelton, C. A. (2016). Congress and the federal reserve. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 48(4), 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hogan, T. L., Le, L., & Salter, A. W. (2015). Ben Bernanke and Bagehot’s rules. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 47(2–3), 333–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hogan, T. L. (2015). Has the fed improved US economic performance? Journal of Macroeconomics, 43, 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Humphrey, T. M. (1989). Lender of last resort: The concept in history. Economic Review, 75(2), 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jordan, J., & Luther, W. J. (2018). Central bank independence and the Federal Reserve’s New Operating Regime. Working paper.

  34. Kane, E. J. (1980). Politics and fed policymaking: The more things change the more they remain the same. Journal of Monetary Economics, 6(2), 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kane, E. J. (1988). The impact of a new federal reserve chairman. Contemporary Economic Policy, 6(1), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaufman, G. G. (1991). Lender of last resort: A contemporary perspective. Journal of Financial Services Research, 5(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kirzner, I. M. (1962). Rational action and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 70(4), 380–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kirzner, I. M. (1963). Rational action and economic theory: Rejoinder. Journal of Political Economy, 71(1), 84–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kvasnicka, M. (2005). Independence and responsibility of central banks. New Perspectives on Political Economy, 1(2), 50–75.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lipsey, R. G., & Lancaster, K. (1956). The general theory of second best. Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mankiw, N. G. (1987). The optimal collection of seigniorage: Theory and evidence. Journal of Monetary Economics, 20(2), 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mayer, T. (2000). Using government documents to assess the influence of academic research on macroeconomic policy. In R. E. Backhouse & A. Salanti (Eds.), Macroeconomics and the real world (Vol. 2, pp. 233–250)., Keynesian economics, unemployment, and policy Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. McCallum, B. T. (1999). Recent developments in monetary policy analysis: The roles of theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Methodology, 6, 171–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Meltzer, A. H. (2011). Politics at the fed. Journal of Monetary Economics, 58(1), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Niskanen, W. A. (1968). Nonmarket decision making: The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. American Economic Review, 58(2), 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Polanyi, M. (1963). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Posner, E. A. (2017). What legal authority does the fed need during a financial crisis. Minnesota Law Review, 101(4), 1529–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Puckett, R. H. (1984). Federal open market committee structure and decisions. Journal of Monetary Economics, 14(1), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ramirez, C. D. (2011). The 700 billion bailout: A public-choice interpretation. Review of Law and Economics, 7(1), 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Riker, W. H. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rotemberg, J. J. (2013). Shifts in US federal reserve goals and tactics for monetary policy: A role for penitence? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(4), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Salter, A. W. (2016). Robust political economy and the lender of last resort. Journal of Financial Services Research, 50(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sanchez, D. (2012). The optimum quantity of money. Business Review, Q4, 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Selgin, G. (2012). L-street: Bagehotian prescriptions for a 21st century money market. Cato Journal, 32(2), 303–332.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Selgin, G., Lastrapes, W. D., & White, L. H. (2012). Has the fed been a failure? Journal of Macroeconomics, 34(3), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shughart, W. F., & Tollison, R. (1983). Preliminary evidence on the use of inputs by the federal reserve system. American Economic Review, 73(3), 291–304.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Shughart, W. F. (2011). The new deal and modern memory. Southern Economic Journal, 77(3), 515–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith, A. (1904 [1776]). In Edward, C. (ed.) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

  59. Toma, E. F., & Toma, M. (1985). Research activities and budget allocations among federal reserve banks. Public Choice, 45(2), 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Toma, M. (1982). Inflationary bias of the Federal reserve system: A bureaucratic perspective. Journal of Monetary Economics, 10(2), 163–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Vanberg, V. (2004). The rationality postulate in economics: Its ambiguity, its deficiency and its evolutionary alternative. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wagner, R. E. (1977). Economic manipulation for political profit: Macroeconomic consequences and constitutional implications. Kyklos, 30(3), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. White, L. H. (2005). The federal reserve system’s influence on research in monetary economics. Econ Journal Watch, 2(2), 325–354.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank David Andolfatto, Gerald P. Dwyer, Jerry Jordan, Peter Leeson, Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr., William F. Shughart II, and Lawrence H. White for providing valuable comments on an earlier draft of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William J. Luther.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salter, A.W., Luther, W.J. Adaptation and central banking. Public Choice 180, 243–256 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-00633-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Bailout
  • Central bank
  • Motivation
  • Seigniorage
  • Selection
  • Research

JEL Classification

  • E31
  • E42
  • E52
  • E58