Press Release - Challenges for future monetary policy frameworks: A European perspective - Speech by Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB, at the 19th Annual International Banking Conference, “Achieving Financial Stability: Challenges to Prudential Regulation”, - Chicago, 4 November 2016
Luncheon speeches should be thought-provoking and entertaining. Unfortunately, that’s a dual mandate that’s beyond the ability of this central banker to deliver.
But if I cannot provide entertainment, allow me to at least provide some thoughts to hopefully provoke some discussion over our meal. To do this, allow me to deviate a little from the main theme of the conference and turn to another topic of common interest. In a cursory and compressed way, I would like to make some remarks on the ongoing debate about the future of monetary policy frameworks, a subject that has become quite topical here in the U.S.
We are now nine years after the beginning of the financial crisis. Considering the role of an overstretched monetary policy to stave off a deeper recession, the following questions were bound to emerge: has monetary policy done enough, should it continue along the same path? Are low, or even negative, rates a permanent feature of monetary policy? Should the size and composition of the central bank balance-sheet continue to be used as an unconventional tool? Should the flexible inflation targeting regime continue to be the dominant framework? Should the target for inflation be increased, or should we adopt a nominal GDP or price-level target instead? Should monetary policy closely follow a concrete rule like, for instance, a Taylor Rule? Should we assume a neo-Fisherian framework and admit that there are multiple economic equilibria and that rates should be increased to avoid leaving the economy stuck in a low level one? Should the operational implementation of monetary policy go beyond short-term market rates or beyond banks as counterparties? Finally, have these questions a different meaning when addressed from Europe or from the U.S.?
These questions are at the forefront of central banking discussion at present, as evidenced by the Jackson Hole gathering this year. They are also debated by academia, the blogosphere and at official conferences. Be reassured, though, I will not address most of them at this occasion. The topic is too vast and my remarks would be scattered and incomplete. Instead, I will focus on the questions surrounding the choice of target and the choice of instruments.
The debate is, unsurprisingly, more advanced here in the U.S. than in Europe, given the stronger recovery and policy normalisation already under way. Logically, this raises questions about the future use of unconventional instruments and the efficiency of policy regimes to deal with a possible future recession.
The debate is embryonic in Europe, as the recovery remains moderate, with economic growth and inflation only recently starting to gain momentum. Furthermore, the debate will necessarily be more constrained given that the ECB’s hierarchical mandate, defined in primary law, confers absolute primacy to price stability over other secondary objectives.
In fact, the debate about the dominant monetary policy regime – Flexible Inflation Targeting (FIT) – started immediately after the emergence of the crisis. There were doubts about whether the narrow objective of monetary policy had allowed the crisis to develop by not reacting to the signs of financial instability and asset price booms. The question about the integration of financial stability concerns into the objective function of monetary policy has stayed with us, in spite of the fragile consensus that such concerns should be the purview of macroprudential policy.
More recently, further doubts about FIT arose over the inability of monetary policy to engineer a quicker recovery, strong enough to bring the economy back to its previous trend. Besides placing too much faith in monetary policy, this also opens the discussion about the targets of monetary policy.
Changing central banks’ targets
In that discussion, a popular proposal is to adopt a target for nominal GDP. There are clear merits to nominal income targeting from a theoretical perspective, since it is a close approximation to the optimal policy prescribed by standard macroeconomic models. Under perfect credibility, such a target is fully consistent with maintaining price stability in the medium run.[1]
The proposal made by Meade, back in 1978, has had many illustrious supporters.[2] It offers the rationale to accommodate cost or supply side shocks that impact inflation and would have led to more expansionary policies since the crisis to counter the growing GDP deviation from the previous growth trend. The proposal faces, however, considerable practical difficulties: from GDP data that is untimely and prone to revision to the demanding task of communicating to the public about a concept they do not directly experience. Another implementation obstacle relates to uncertainty over potential output, which risks nominal GDP targets delivering higher inflation without any benefit for real economic activity.
That said, as shown for instance by Charles Bean (2009),[3] the practical difference between nominal GDP targeting and inflation targeting is not substantial. FIT permits policymakers to look through short-term supply shocks, monetary policy would be similarly accommodative in the case of aggregate demand shocks under either type of target. Long ago, Lars Svensson showed how FIT, by aiming to return to the target only gradually, is equivalent to the use of an objective function with both inflation and the output gap.[4]
Finally, it is not easy for monetary policy to deliver a nominal income target. The enthusiasm of the supporters of the market monetarism school - believing that monetary aggregates could do the job – stands out as empirically unfounded.
So while a nominal income target may be theoretically superior, I remain very sceptical of its practical use, above and beyond the legal constraints that inhibit its adoption in the euro area.
A concept that seems close to a nominal income target is the adoption of a type of Taylor rule to conduct monetary policy. Lars Svensson would insist on the distinction between a targeting rule and an instrument rule, which is a formula for setting the central bank’s instrument rate as a function of target variables. He has pointed out the shortcomings of the latter.[5] Benhabib, Schmitt-Grohé and Uribe (2001)[6] have also showed how Taylor rules combined with a zero lower bound would lead to multiple equilibria. It is not by chance that no central bank has ever committed to following an instrument rule.
The problem of the lower bound on interest rates led some economists[7] to propose an increase in the inflation target to create more room above the lower bound to respond to future recessionary episodes. However, changing the inflation objective at a time when outcomes have been below the current objective for a number of years, risks damaging central banks credibility. Changing the objective, say to 4%, would only be effective if inflation expectations were successfully re-anchored at the higher level, which would be unattainable in present circumstances.
Directorate General Communications
Sonnemannstrasse 20, 60314 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Tel.: +49 69 1344 7455, E-mail: media@ecb.europa.eu
Website: www.ecb.europa.eu
page source http://www.ecb.europa.eu/
