Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:24:32.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DOES CALVO MEET ROTEMBERG AT THE ZERO LOWER BOUND?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2019

Jianjun Miao  and
Phuong V. Ngo
Jianjun Miao
Affiliation:
Boston University Peking University Central University of Finance and Economics
Phuong V. Ngo*
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University
*
Address correspondence to: Phuong V. Ngo, Department of Economics, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid, Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA. e-mail: [email protected]. Phone: (617) 347 2706. Fax: (216) 687 9206.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper compares the conventional Calvo and Rotemberg price adjustments at the zero lower bound (ZLB) on nominal interest rates. Although the two pricing mechanisms are equivalent to a first-order approximation around the zero-inflation steady state, they produce very different results, based on a fully-nonlinear method. Specifically, the nominal interest rate hits the ZLB more frequently in the Calvo model than in the Rotemberg model. At the ZLB, deflation is larger and recessions are more severe in the Calvo model. The main reason for the difference in results is that price adjustment costs show up in the resource constraints in the Rotemberg. When they are rebated to the household, the two models behave similarly.

Keywords

Calvo Price AdjustmentsRotemberg Price AdjustmentsZLBProjection Methods
Type
Notes
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , June 2021 , pp. 1090 - 1111
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is a revision of an essential part of our previously circulated working paper entitled “Does Calvo Meet Rotemberg at the Zero Lower Bound?” We would like to thank William Barnett, John Leahy, Karl Schmedders, Matthias Doepke, an associate editor, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments/suggestions. We also thank Gauti Eggertsson, Lena Korber, Taisuke Nakata, Nate Throckmorton, and participants from the 2015 Econometric Society World Congress, the 2015 Meeting of the Society for Economic Dynamics, and the fall 2014 Midwest Macroeconomics Meeting for their helpful conversations/comments. In addition, Phuong Ngo gratefully acknowledges the Graduate Faculty Travel Award from the Office of Research at Cleveland State University.

References

REFERENCES

Adam, K. and Billi, R. M. (2007) Discretionary monetary policy and the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates. Journal of Monetary Economics 54, 728–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aruoba, S. B. and Schorfheide, F. (2013) Macroeconomic Dynamics Near the ZLB: A Tale of Two Equilibria. NBER Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascari, G. and Rossi, L. (2012) Trend inflation and firms price-setting: Rotemberg versus Calvo. The Economic Journal 122, 1115–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascari, G., Castelnuovo, E. and Rossi, L. (2011) Calvo vs Rotemberg in a trend inflation world: An emprical investigation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 35, 1852–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billi, R. (2017) A note on nominal dgp targeting and the zero lower bound. Macroeconomic Dynamics . 21, 2138–2157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, R. A. and Waki, Y. (2010) On the Size of the Fiscal Multiplier When the Nominal Interest Rate is Zero. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper.Google Scholar
Calvo, A. G. (1983) Staggered prices in a utility maximizing framework. Journal of Monetary Economics 12, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, L., Eichenbaum, M. and Rebelo, S. (2011) When is the government spending multiplier is large? Journal of Political Economy 113, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotsey, M., King, R. G. and Wolman, A. L. (1999) State-dependent pricing and the general equilibrium dynamics of money and output. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 655–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggertsson, B. G. and Krugman, P. (2012) Debt, deleveraging and the liquidity trap: A Fisher-Minsky-Koo approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3), 1469–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggertsson, B. G. and Singh, S. R. (2016) Log-Linear Approximation Versus an Exact Solution at the ZLB in the New Keynesian Model. NBER Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Villaverde, J., Gordon, G., Guerron-Quintana, P. and Rubio-Ramirez, J. (2015) Nonlinear adventures at the zero lower bound. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 57, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gali, J. (2008) Monetary Policy, Inflation, and the Business Cycle: An Introduction to the New Keynesian Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Girdenas, S. (2018) A note on simple monetary policy rules with labor market and financial frictions. Macroeconomic Dynamics . 22, 1321–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrieri, V. and Lorenzoni, G. (2011) Credit Crises, Precautionary Savings and the Liquidity Trap. Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, N. P. (1997) A small, structural, quarterly model for monetary policy evaluation. Carnegie- n.a. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 47, 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, L. K. (1998) Numerical Methods in Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Judd, L. K., Maliar, L. and Maliar, S. (2011) A Cluster-Grid Algorithm: Solving Problems with High Dimensionality. Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, H. (2005) Price-setting behaviour, competition, and markup shocks in the new keynesian model. Economics Letters 87, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koop, G., Pesaran, M. H. and Potter, simon. M. (1996) Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. Journal of Econometrics 74, 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leith, C. and Liu, D. (2016) The inflation bias under Calvo and Rotemberg pricing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 73, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miao, J. (2014) Economic Dynamics in Discrete Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miranda, J. M. and Fackler, P. L. (2002) Applied Computational Economics and Finance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, E. and Steinsson, J. (2008) Five facts about prices: A reevaluation of menu cost models. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(4), 1415–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T. (2011) Optimal Fiscal andMonetary Policy with Occasionally Binding Zero Lower Bound. New York University Working Paper.Google Scholar
Ngo, V. P. (2014a) Habit formation in state-dependent pricing models: Implications for the dynamics of output and inflation. Economics Letters 123, 336–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngo, V. P. (2014b) Optimal discretionary monetary policy in a micro-founded model with a zero lower bound on nominal interest rate. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 45, 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngo, V. P. (2018) The risk of hitting the zero lower bound and the optimal inflation target. Macroeconomic Dynamics . 22(2), 402–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, W. A. and Throckmorton, N. A. (2016) Is Rotemberg pricing justified by macro data? Economics Letters 149(1), 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotemberg, J. (1982) Sticky prices in the united states. J. Political Economy 90, 1187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauchen, G. and Hussey, R. (1991) Quadrature-based methods for obtaining approximate solutions to nonlinear asset pricing models. Econometrica 59(2), 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodford, M. (2003) Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar