We find significant evidence of model misspecification, in the form of neglected serial correlation, in the econometric model of the U.S. housing market used by Taylor (2007) in his critique of monetary policy following the 2001 recession. When we account for that serial correlation, his model fails to replicate the historical paths of housing starts and house price inflation. Further modifications allow us to capture both the housing boom and the bust. Our results suggest that the counterfactual monetary policy proposed by Taylor (2007) would not have averted the pre-financial crisis collapse in the housing market. Additional analysis implies that the burst of house price inflation during the COVID-19 pandemic was not caused by the deviations from the Taylor rule that occurred during this period.

We are motivated by central bank responses to the rise in inflation in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic and investigate monetary policy behavior in advanced and emerging economies. We speak to the debate on whether the conduct of monetary policy in emerging economies is fundamentally different from that in advanced economies. We also address the issue of whether the common practice of using market rates (instead of policy rates) to proxy for the stance of monetary policy leads to different conclusions regarding the cyclicality of monetary policy in emerging economies. Using time series data for the G7 and EM7 countries, we show that the conventional wisdom that monetary policy in emerging economies is different from monetary policy in advanced economies still holds.

We provide new evidence about US monetary policy using a model that: (i) estimates time-varying monetary policy weights without relying on stylized theoretical assumptions; (ii) allows for endogenous breakdowns in the relationship between interest rates, inflation, and output; and (iii) generates a unique measure of monetary policy activism that accounts for economic instability. The joint incorporation of endogenous time-varying uncertainty about the monetary policy parameters and the stability of the relationship between interest rates, inflation, and output materially reduces the probability of determinate monetary policy. The average probability of determinacy over the period post-1982 to 1997 is below 60% (hence well below seminal estimates of determinacy probabilities that are close to unity). Post-1990, the average probability of determinacy is 75%, falling to approximately 60% when we allow for typical levels of trend inflation.

This paper compares different implementations of monetary policy in a new-Keynesian setting. We can show that a shift from Ramsey optimal policy under short-term commitment (based on a negative feedback mechanism) to a Taylor rule (based on a positive feedback mechanism) corresponds to a Hopf bifurcation with opposite policy advice and a change of the dynamic properties. This bifurcation occurs because of the ad hoc assumption that interest rate is a forward-looking variable when policy targets (inflation and output gap) are forward-looking variables in the new-Keynesian theory.

This paper proposes an alternative measure for the slack of the aggregate labor market. The natural rate of hours holds valuable information about the state of the labor market that is not reflected by conventional measures, such as the equilibrium rate of unemployment, because it takes the intensive margin into account and is robust to variations in labor force participation. We set up and estimate a multivariate unobserved-components model using information on GDP, inflation, and hours worked, and apply it to the United States and Germany. The estimated hours gap outperforms conventional unemployment gap measures in a Taylor rule by formal model comparison.

This paper analyzes the dynamical properties of monetary models with regime switching. We start with the analysis of the evolution of inflation when policy is guided by a simple monetary rule where coefficients switch with the policy regime. We rule out the possibility of a Hopf bifurcation and demonstrate the possibility of a period-doubling bifurcation. As a result, a small change in the parameters (e.g., a more active policy response) can lead to a drastic change in the path of inflation. We show that the New Keynesian model with a current-looking Taylor rule is not prone to bifurcations. A New Keynesian model with a hybrid rule, however, exhibits the same pattern of period-doubling bifurcations as the analysis with a simple monetary rule.

We examine U.S. monetary policies from 1973 to 2014 with the Taylor rule as a benchmark by utilizing a k-state Markov regime-switching model in which the number and the periods of the regimes are endogenously determined. The model relates the federal funds rate to real time output gaps and inflation forecast. It endogenously identifies the periods of Taylor rule regime and discretionary regimes, consistent with the U.S. experience. The Taylor rule regime also coincides with periods of lower variability in inflation and in real GDP growth.

Early research on the Taylor rule typically divided the data exogenously into pre-Volcker and Volcker–Greenspan subsamples. We contribute to the recent trend of endogenizing changes in monetary policy by estimating a real-time forward-looking Taylor rule with endogenous Markov switching coefficients and variance. The response of the interest rate to inflation is regime-dependent, with the pre- and post-Volcker samples containing monetary regimes where the Fed did and did not follow the Taylor principle. Although the Fed consistently adhered to the Taylor principle before 1973 and after 1984, it followed the Taylor principle from 1975 to 1979 and did not follow the Taylor principle from 1980 to 1984. We also find that the Fed only responded to real economic activity during the states in which the Taylor principle held. Our results are consistent with the idea that exogenously dividing postwar monetary policy into pre- and post-Volcker samples is misleading. The greatest qualitative difference between our results and recent research employing time-varying parameters is that we find that the Fed did not adhere to the Taylor principle during most of Paul Volcker's tenure, a finding that accords with the historical record of monetary policy.

We aim at establishing whether the institutional adoption of inflation targeting has changed the conduct of monetary policy. To do so, we test the hypothesis of inflation targeting translating into a stronger response to inflation in a Taylor rule with three alternative econometric models: a structural break model, a time-varying parameter model with stochastic volatility, and a Markov-switching VAR model. We conclude that inflation targeting has not led to a stronger response to inflation in the reaction function of the monetary authority. This result suggests that inflation targeting being meant to anchor inflation expectations through enhanced credibility and accountability, it may enable a central bank to stabilize inflation without pursuing aggressive action toward inflation variations.

We examine the evolution of monetary policy rules in a group of inflation-targeting countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), applying a moment-based estimator in a time-varying parameter model with endogenous regressors. From this novel flexible framework, our main findings are threefold. First, monetary policy rules change gradually, pointing to the importance of applying a time-varying estimation framework. Second, the interest-rate smoothing parameter is much lower than typically reported by previous time-invariant estimates of policy rules. External factors matter for all countries, although the importance of the exchange rate diminishes after the adoption of inflation targeting. Third, the response of interest rates to inflation is particularly strong during periods when central bankers want to break a record of high inflation, such as in the United Kingdom or Australia at the beginning of the 1980s. Contrary to common perceptions, the response becomes less aggressive after the adoption of inflation targeting, suggesting a positive anchoring effect of this regime on inflation expectations. This result is supported by our finding that inflation persistence typically decreased after the adoption of inflation targeting.

The recent macroeconomic literature stresses the importance of managing heterogeneous expectations in the formulation of monetary policy. We use a simple frictionless dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model to investigate inflation dynamics under alternative interest rate rules when agents have heterogeneous expectations, and update their beliefs based on past performance, as in Brock and Hommes [Econometrica 65(5), 1059–1095 (1997)]. The stabilizing effect of different monetary policies depends on the ecology of forecasting rules (i.e., the composition of the set of predictors), on agents' sensitivity to differences in forecasting performance, and on how aggressively the monetary authority sets the nominal interest rate in response to inflation. In particular, if the monetary authority responds only weakly to inflation, a cumulative process with rising inflation is likely. On the other hand, a Taylor interest rate rule that sets the interest rate more than point for point in response to inflation stabilizes inflation dynamics, but does not always lead the system to converge to the rational expectations equilibrium, as multiple equilibria may persist.

Housing is an important component of the consumption basket. Because both rental prices and goods prices are sticky, the literature suggests that optimal monetary policy should stabilize both types of prices, with the optimal weight on rental inflation proportional to the housing expenditure share. In a two-sector DSGE model with sticky rental prices and goods prices, however, we find that the optimal weight on rental inflation in the Taylor rule is small—much smaller than that implied by the housing expenditure share. We show that the asymmetry in policy responses to rent inflation versus goods inflation stems from the asymmetry in factor intensity between the two sectors.

This study examines the expectational stability of rational expectations equilibria (REE) under alternative Taylor rules when trend inflation is nonzero. We find that when trend inflation is high, the REE is likely to be expectationally unstable. This result holds true regardless of the nature of the data (such as contemporaneous, forecast, or lagged data) introduced in the Taylor rule. Our results suggest that high macroeconomic volatility during the period of high trend inflation can be explained well by introducing the concept of expectational stability.

Alternative measures of the UK output gap are considered for 1984–2007. The real-time series is strongly affected by the rolling-time estimation of the trend, and produces a picture of the business cycle which is not consistent with contemporary perceptions of the large fluctuations of the late 1980s and early 1990s. A new, ‘nearly-real’, measure developed here may be better for estimating historical reaction functions. In the context of the current recession, none of these mechanically derived measures of the output gap are useful. Policymakers should make careful estimates of the likely fall in potential output on the basis of other information.