Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Seoul Journal of Economics
[ Article ]
Seoul Journal of Economics - Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.525-550
ISSN: 1225-0279 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Nov 2011
Received 07 Apr 2010 Revised 07 Apr 2011 Accepted 09 Apr 2011

Monetary Instrument Problem Revisited: The Role of Fiscal Policy

Soyoung Kim
Professor, Department of Economics, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Sillim-Dong, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-746, Republic of Korea, Tel: ＋82-2-880-2689, Fax: +82-2-886-4231 soyoungkim@snu.ac.kr

JEL Classification: E63, E52, E31

Abstract

The monetary instrument problem is examined in an endowment economy model with various stochastic disturbances, with minimizing the variance of inflation as the policy objective. Following current developments in the theory of fiscal determination of the price level, active or passive fiscal policy is specified to guarantee a unique equilibrium for different monetary policies. The responses of inflation to various structural disturbances in the constant money growth rate-passive fiscal (the active monetary-passive fiscal regime, or the conventional regime where the Ricardian equivalence theorem and the Quantity Theory of Money hold) and the constant interest rate-active fiscal regime (the passive monetary-active fiscal regime, or the regime where fiscal policy determines the price level) are examined. The results are explained based on the role of monetary and fiscal policies in financing government deficit changes and satisfying the government budget constraint in each regime, which is different from the explanations of past research following Poole.

Keywords:

Monetary instrument problem, Variance of inflation, Fiscal policy, Nominal government debt, Fiscal theory of the price level

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the financial support from the Advanced Strategy Program (ASP) of the Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.

References

  • Ahn, C. W., and Jung, W. S. “Long-term Contracts and the Optimal Choice of Monetary Instruments.” Seoul Journal of Economics 4 (No. 2 1991): 123-39.
  • Aiyagari, S. R., and Gertler, M. “The Backing of Government Debt and Monetarism.” Journal of Monetary Economics 16 (No. 1 1985): 19-44. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(85)90004-2]
  • Blanchard, O. J., and Kahn, C. “The Solution of Linear Difference Models Under Rational Expectations.” Econometrica 48 (No. 5 1980): 1305-11. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1912186]
  • Bohn, H. “Why Do We Have Nominal Government Debt?” Journal of Monetary Economics 21 (No. 1 1988): 127-40. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90050-5]
  • Canzoneri, M. B., Henderson, D. W., and Rogoff, K. S. “The Information Content of the Interest Rate and Optimal Monetary Policy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 98 (No. 4 1983): 545-66. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1881777]
  • Friedman, B. M. “Targets and Instruments of Monetary Policy.” In B. M. Friedman and F. H. Hahn (eds.), Handbook of Monetary Economics 2. North-Holland: Amsterdam, pp. 1185-1230, 1989. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4498(05)80029-3]
  • Kerr, William, and King, Robert G. “Limits on Interest Rules in the IS Model.” Economic Quarterly 82/2 (Spring), Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 1996.
  • Kim, Soyoung. “Inflation Volatility, Government Debts, and the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level.” Economic Letters 85 (No. 1 2004): 117-21. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2004.03.027]
  • Leeper, E. M. “Equilibria under ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ Monetary and Fiscal Policies.” Journal of Monetary Economics 27 (No. 1 1991): 129-47. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(91)90007-B]
  • McCallum, B. T. “Price Level Determinacy with an Interest Rate Policy Rule and Rational Expectations.” Journal of Monetary Economics 8 (No. 3 1981): 319-29. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(81)90014-3]
  • McCallum, B. T. “On Non-Uniqueness in Rational Expectations Models: An Attempt at Perspective.” Journal of Monetary Economics 11 (No. 2 1983): 139-68. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(83)90028-4]
  • Parkin, M. “A Comparison of Alternative Techniques of Monetary Control under Rational Expectations.” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 46 (No. 3 1978): 252-87. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1978.tb00166.x]
  • Poole, W. “Optimal Choice of Monetary Policy Instrument in a Simple Stochastic Macro Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (No. 2 1970): 197-216. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1883009]
  • Sargent, T. J., and Wallace, N. ““Rational” Expectations, the Optimal Monetary Instrument, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule.” Journal of Political Economy 83 (No. 2 1975): 241-54. [https://doi.org/10.1086/260321]
  • Sargent, T. J., and Wallace, N. “The Real-Bills Doctrine versus the Quantity Theory: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Political Economy 90 (No. 6 1982): 1212-36. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261118]
  • Sims, C. A. “Identifying Policy Effects.” In R. C. Bryant et al. (eds.), Empirical Macroeconomics for Interdependent Economies. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 305-21, 1988.
  • Sims, C. A. “A Simple Model for Study of the Determination of the Price Level and the Interactions of Monetary and Fiscal Policy.” Economic Theory 4 (No. 3 1994): 381-99. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01215378]
  • Sims, C. A. Solving Linear Rational Expectation Models. processed, Yale University, 1995.
  • Smith, B. D. “Legal Restrictions, Sunspots, and Peel’s Bank Act: The Real Bills Doctrine vs. the Quantity Theory Reconsidered.” Journal of Political Economy 96 (No. 1 1988): 3-19. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261521]
  • Woodford, M. “Price Level Determinacy without Control of a Monetary Aggregate.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 43 (December 1995): 1-46. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2231(95)90033-0]