Home Trend Growth and Robust Monetary Policy
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Trend Growth and Robust Monetary Policy

  • Kohei Hasui EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 23, 2020
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
From the journal The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics Volume 21 Issue 2

Abstract

Recent monetary policy studies have shown that the trend productivity growth has non-trivial implications for monetary policy. This paper investigates how trend growth alters the effect of model uncertainty on macroeconomic fluctuations by introducing a robust control problem. We show that an increase in trend growth reduces the effect of the central bank’s model uncertainty and, hence, mitigates the large macroeconomic fluctuations. Moreover, the increase in trend growth contributes to bringing the economy into determinacy regions even if larger model uncertainty exists. These results indicate that trend growth contributes to stabilizing the economy in terms of both variance and determinacy when model uncertainty exists.

Keywords: model uncertainty; robust monetary policy; trend growth
JEL Classification: E50; E52
Corresponding author: Kohei Hasui, Faculty of Economics, Matsuyama University, Matsuyama, Japan, E-mail:

Acknowledgment

The author thanks Evi Pappa (the associate editor) and two anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions and comments. The author acknowledges financial support from JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K13768.

Appendix

A.1 Deviation from the Approximating Model

Although the central bank designed its policy supposing the worst-case, it should be considered that no model misspecification exists. This is called an “approximating model”(Giordani and Söderlind 2004). The approximating model can be obtained by substituting the policy function of the nominal interest rate under robust policy i t = c i ( θ , γ ) u t + r t n into the undistorted model in Eqs. (2) and (3).[26] The policy function of the inflation rate under the approximating model is given as follows:

(A.1) π t a = c π a u t ,   c π a = 1 − ϵ / ( θ κ ( γ ) ) χ ( θ , γ ) ,

where π t a denotes the inflation rate under the approximating model. The rate at which the robust policy deviates from the approximating model in inflation is given as follows:

π t r − π t a π t a = c π − c π a c π a = ϵ θ κ ( γ ) − ϵ ,

where π t r denotes the inflation rate under the robust policy. We analyze how trend growth and the model uncertainty affect this deviation rate by differentiating θ and γ as follows.

(A.2) − ∂ 2 ( c π / c π a − 1 ) ∂ θ ∂ γ = − ϵ [ θ κ ( γ ) + ϵ ] [ θ κ ( γ ) − ϵ ] 3 ∂ κ ( γ ) ∂ γ .

The sign of (A.2) is ambiguous. When θ κ ( γ ) < ϵ and σ > 1, the sign of (A.2) is positive. In this case, the cost of the robust policy in terms of the inflation rate increases as the trend growth rises.

A.2 Calculation: Detection Error Probability

In this section, we describe in detail the calculation of the detection error probability. The overall definition of detection error probability is expressed as follows (Giordani and Söderlind 2004):

p ( θ ) = 1 2 × Prob ( L A > L W | W ) + 1 2 × Prob ( L W > L A | A ) ,

where L A and L W denote the values of the likelihood of the approximating model and worst-case scenario, respectively. The notations A and W denote the approximating model and worst-case scenario, respectively. Given the data from the model, the probability is calculated as the rate of wrong choices between the worst-case scenario and the approximating model. The detection error probability thus indicates the difficulty of distinguishing between models with and without misspecification. Following Giordani and Söderlind (2004, p.2376), we set θ so that the detection error probability was 20%.

To obtain the detection error probability, we generate a data of misspecification term for the worst-case and the approximating model (we express these as ν t w and ν t a , respectively) for sufficiently long periods T.[27]

Then, we calculate the relative likelihood r w and r a as follows:[28]

(A.3) r w = 1 T ∑ t = 0 T − 1 ( 1 2 ( ν t w ) ′ ν t w + ( ν t w ) ′ u t ) ,

(A.4) r a = 1 T ∑ t = 0 T − 1 ( 1 2 ( ν t a ) ′ ν t a − ( ν t a ) ′ u t ) .

Finally, we obtain the detection error probability as follows:

(A.5) p ( θ ) = 1 2 [ freq ( r w ≤ 0 ) + freq ( r a ≤ 0 ) ] .

A.3 Brief Description of the Model of F. Mattesini and S. Nisticò (2010)

The households’ problem is given as follows:

(A.6) max C t , N t ( j ) E t ∑ t = 0 ∞ β t C t 1 − σ 1 − σ ( 1 − N t ( j ) ) 1 − ζ , s . t . P t C t + E t [ ℱ t , t + 1 B t + 1 ] ≤ W t ( j ) N t ( j ) + P R t + B t − T t ,

where C t , N t , W t , ℱ t , t + 1 , B t , PR t , and T t denotes consumption, labor supply, nominal wage, SDF, state contingent claim, nominal profit from firm sector, and lump-sum tax, respectively. j ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] denotes the index of continuum households.

In Mattesini and Nisticò’s (2010) model, the employment agency packs the differentiated labor supplies from household N t ( j ) . By cost minimization in the employment agencies, the demand for differentiated labor is derived as follows:

(A.7) N t ( j ) = ( W t ( j ) W t ) − η t N t ,

where η t denotes the elasticity of substitution between different types of labors.

Firms’ price setting problem is given as follows:

(A.8) max P t r ( i ) E t ∑ k = 0 ∞ α k ℱ t , t + k [ P t r ( i ) − P t + k M C ] Y t + k ( i ) s . t Y t + k ( i ) = ( P t r ( i ) / P t ) − ϵ Y t + k .

where Y t , P t r , P t , and MC t denotes the output, price to be set optimally, aggregate price, and real marginal cost, respectively. i ∈ [ 0,1 ] denotes the index of monopolistically competitive firms.

The firm i’s production function and real marginal cost are given as follows

(A.9) Y t ( i ) = γ t A t N t ( i ) ,

(A.10) M C t = ( 1 − τ ) W t γ t A t P t

A.3.1 The Stationary Equilibrium

To obtain a stationary equilibrium, we divide consumption, output, and government spending (G t ) by γ t , and we express these de-treneded variables with “hat” as for the arbitrary variables X ˆ t = X t / γ t .

(A.11) E t [ ℱ t , t + 1 ] C ˆ t − σ ( 1 − N t ) 1 − ζ = β γ − σ E t [ P t P t + 1 C ˆ t + 1 − σ ( 1 − N t + 1 ) 1 − ζ ] ,

(A.12) E t ∑ k = 0 ∞ ( α γ ) k ℱ t , t + k [ P t r ( i ) − ϵ ϵ − 1 P t + k M C ] Y ˆ t ( i ) = 0 ,

(A.13) Y ˆ t D t = A t N t ,

(A.14) Y ˆ t = C ˆ t + G ˆ t ,

(A.15) M C t = 1 − ζ 1 − σ ( 1 + μ t W ) ( 1 − τ ) A t C ˆ t 1 − N t ,

where μ t W = 1 / ( η t − 1 ) denotes the wage mark-up shock. D t denotes the price dispersion.

A.3.2 Log-Linearized Model

Log-linearizing around the steady-state, the model system is expressed as follows:

(A.16) y ˆ t = E t y ˆ t + 1 − σ n − 1 ( i t − E t π t + 1 − ρ ) + σ n − 1 φ ( 1 − ζ ) E t Δ a t + 1 − σ n − 1 σ s c E t Δ g t + 1 .

(A.17) π t = β γ 1 − σ E t π t + 1 + κ ( γ ) m c t ,

(A.18) mc t = ( s c + φ ) y ˆ t − s c g t − ( 1 + φ ) a t + e t ,

(A.19) y ‾ ˆ t = 1 + φ s c + φ a t + s c s c + φ g t .

where π t , i t , , y ˆ t , and y ‾ ˆ t denote the log-linearized inflation rate, nominal interest rate, de-trended output, and de-trended potential output. We define g t = G ˆ / Y ˆ g ˆ t , e t = μ t W − μ W , ρ = σ ln γ − ln β , and s c = Y ˆ / C ˆ . Combining these equations, we obtain the following three-equation-style expression:

(A.20) x t = E t x t + 1 − σ n − 1 ( i t − E t π t + 1 − r t n ) ,

(A.21) π t = β γ 1 − σ E t π t + 1 + κ ξ x t + u t ,

where x t = y ˆ t − y ‾ ˆ t (output gap) and u t = κ e t .[29] r t n denotes the natural interest rate. r t n is given as follows:

r t n = ( ζ − 1 ) ( s c − 1 ) φ + σ s c ( 1 + φ ) s c + φ E t Δ a t + 1 − s c ( ζ − 1 ) φ + σ s c φ s c + φ E t Δ g t + 1 .

References

Barlevy, G. 2011. “Robustness and Macroeconomic Policy.” Annual Review of Economics 3: 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-061109-080355.Search in Google Scholar

Basu, S., and M. Kimball. 2002. Long-run Labor Supply and the Elasticity of Intertemporal Substitution for Consumption. Michigan: University of Michigan Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Batini, N., A. Justiniano, P. Levine, and J. Pearlman. 2006. “Robust Inflation-Forecast-Based Rules to Shield against Indeterminacy.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30: 1491–526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2005.08.010.Search in Google Scholar

Brainard, W. C. 1967. “Uncertainty and the Effectiveness of Policy.” The American Economic Review 57: 411–25.Search in Google Scholar

Bullard, J., and K. Mitra. 2002. “Learning about Monetary Policy Rules.” Journal of Monetary Economics 49: 1105–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3932(02)00144-7.Search in Google Scholar

Cogley, T., R. Colacito, L. P. Hansen, and T. J. Sargent. 2008. “Robustness and U.S. Monetary Policy Experimentation.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 40: 1599–623, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4616.2008.00176.x.Search in Google Scholar

Cogley, T., and A. M. Sbordone. 2008. “Trend Inflation, Indexation, and Inflation Persistence in the New Keynesian Phillips Curve.” The American Economic Review 98: 2101–26, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.2101.Search in Google Scholar

Dennis, R. 2008. “Robust Control with Commitment: A Modification to Hansen-Sargent.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32: 2061–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2007.08.003.Search in Google Scholar

Dennis, R., K. Leitemo, and U. Söderström. 2009. “Methods for Robust Control.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 33: 1604–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2009.02.011.Search in Google Scholar

Fernald, J. G. 2014. “Productivity and Potential Output before, during, and after the Great Recession.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 29: 1–51.10.1086/680580Search in Google Scholar

Gerke, R., and F. Hammermann. 2016. “Robust Monetary Policy in a New Keynesian Model with Imperfect Interest Rate Pass-Through.” Macroeconomic Dynamics 20: 1504–26, https://doi.org/10.1017/s136510051400100x.Search in Google Scholar

Giannoni, M. P. 2002. “Does Model Uncertainty Justify Caution? Robust Optimal Monetary Policy in a Forward-Looking Model.” Macroeconomic Dynamics 6: 111–44, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1365100502027062.Search in Google Scholar

Giannoni, M. P. 2007. “Robust Optimal Monetary Policy in a Forward-Looking Model with Parameter and Shock Uncertainty.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 22: 179–213, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.934.Search in Google Scholar

Giordani, P., and P. Söderlind. 2004. “Solution of Macromodels with Hansen–Sargent Robust Policies: Some Extensions.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28: 2367–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2003.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, L. P., and T. J. Sargent. 2003. “Robust Control of Forward-Looking Models.” Journal of Monetary Economics 50: 581–604, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3932(03)00026-6.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, L. P., and T. J. Sargent. 2008. Robustness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, L. P., and T. J. Sargent. 2012. “Three Types of Ambiguity.” Journal of Monetary Economics 59: 422–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.06.003.Search in Google Scholar

Hasui, K. 2020. “A Note on Robust Monetary Policy and Non-zero Trend Inflation.” Macroeconomic Dynamics 24: 1574–94, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1365100518000883.Search in Google Scholar

Kiley, M. T. 2010. “Habit Persistence, Nonseparability between Consumption and Leisure, or Rule-Of-Thumb Consumers: Which Accounts for the Predictability of Consumption Growth?” The Review of Economics and Statistics 92: 679–83, https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00019.Search in Google Scholar

King, R. G., C. I. Plosser, and S. T. Rebelo. 1988a. “Production, Growth and Business Cycles : I. The Basic Neoclassical Model.” Journal of Monetary Economics 21: 195–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90030-x.Search in Google Scholar

King, R. G., C. I. Plosser, and S. T. Rebelo. 1988b. “Production, Growth and Business Cycles : II. New Directions.” Journal of Monetary Economics 21: 309–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90034-7.Search in Google Scholar

Kwon, H., and J. Miao. 2017. “Three Types of Robust Ramsey Problems in a Linear-Quadratic Framework.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 76: 211–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2017.01.004.Search in Google Scholar

Lechthaler, W., and M. F. Tesfaselassie. 2019. “A Note on Trend Growth, Unemployment, and Optimal Monetary Policy.” Macroeconomic Dynamics 23: 1703–19, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1365100517000402.Search in Google Scholar

Leitemo, K., and U. Söderström. 2008a. “Robust Monetary Policy in a Small Open Economy.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32: 3218–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2008.02.0s02.Search in Google Scholar

Leitemo, K., and U. Söderström. 2008b. “Robust Monetary Policy in the New Keynesian Framework.” Macroeconomic Dynamics 12: 126–35, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1365100507070058.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, A. T., and J. C. Williams. 2003. “Robust Monetary Policy with Competing Reference Models.” Journal of Monetary Economics 50: 945–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3932(03)00059-x.Search in Google Scholar

Linnemann, L. 2006. “The Effect of Government Spending on Private Consumption: A Puzzle?” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 38: 1715–35, https://doi.org/10.1353/mcb.2006.0094.Search in Google Scholar

Mattesini, F., and S. Nisticò. 2010. “Trend Growth and Optimal Monetary Policy.” Journal of Macroeconomics 32: 797–815, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2010.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Miranda, M. J., and P. L. Fackler. 2004. Applied Computational Economics and Finance. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Search in Google Scholar

Muto, I. 2013. “Productivity Growth, Transparency, and Monetary Policy.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 37: 329–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2012.08.005.Search in Google Scholar

Nakamura, E., and J. Steinsson. 2008. “Five Facts about Prices: A Reevaluation of Menu Cost Models.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123: 1415–64, https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.4.1415.Search in Google Scholar

Onatski, A., and N. Williams. 2003. “Modeling Model Uncertainty.” Journal of the European Economic Association 1: 1087–122, https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603770383406.Search in Google Scholar

Orphanides, A., and V. Wieland. 2013. “Complexity and Monetary Policy.” International Journal of Central Banking 9: 167–204.Search in Google Scholar

Schaling, E., and M. F. Tesfaselassie. 2017. “A Note on Trend Growth and Learning about Monetary Policy Rules in a Two-Block World Economy.” Macroeconomic Dynamics 21: 243–58, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1365100515000334.Search in Google Scholar

Tesfaselassie, M. F. 2013. “Trend Productivity Growth and the Government Spending Multiplier.” Journal of Macroeconomics 37: 197–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2013.04.003.Search in Google Scholar

Tesfaselassie, M. F. 2014. “Trend Growth and Learning about Monetary Policy Rules.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 41: 241–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2014.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Tillmann, P. 2009a. “Optimal Monetary Policy with an Uncertain Cost Channel.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 41: 885–906, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4616.2009.00237.x.Search in Google Scholar

Tillmann, P. 2009b. “Robust Monetary Policy with the Cost Channel.” Economica 76: 486–504, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2008.00697.x.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-06-17
Accepted: 2020-11-01
Published Online: 2020-11-23

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Contributions
  3. Occupational Choice and Investments in Human Capital in Informal Economies
  4. Asymmetric Effects of Monetary Policy
  5. Trend Growth and Robust Monetary Policy
  6. Delegating Optimal Monetary Policy Inertia in a Small-Open Economy
  7. Dating Structural Changes in UK Monetary Policy
  8. International Historical Evidence on Money Growth and Inflation: The Role of High Inflation Episodes
  9. Inequality, Growth, and Congestion Externalities
  10. The Neoclassical Growth Model and the Labor Share Decline
  11. Environmental Taxes and Economic Growth with Multiple Growth Engines
  12. Macrodynamic Modeling of Innovation Equilibria and Traps
  13. Advances
  14. Unraveling News: Reconciling Conflicting Evidence
  15. Did the FED React to Asset Price Bubbles?
  16. Agricultural Trade and Structural Change: Evidence from Paraguay
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2020-0133
Keywords for this article
model uncertainty; robust monetary policy; trend growth

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Contributions
  3. Occupational Choice and Investments in Human Capital in Informal Economies
  4. Asymmetric Effects of Monetary Policy
  5. Trend Growth and Robust Monetary Policy
  6. Delegating Optimal Monetary Policy Inertia in a Small-Open Economy
  7. Dating Structural Changes in UK Monetary Policy
  8. International Historical Evidence on Money Growth and Inflation: The Role of High Inflation Episodes
  9. Inequality, Growth, and Congestion Externalities
  10. The Neoclassical Growth Model and the Labor Share Decline
  11. Environmental Taxes and Economic Growth with Multiple Growth Engines
  12. Macrodynamic Modeling of Innovation Equilibria and Traps
  13. Advances
  14. Unraveling News: Reconciling Conflicting Evidence
  15. Did the FED React to Asset Price Bubbles?
  16. Agricultural Trade and Structural Change: Evidence from Paraguay
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejm-2020-0133/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button