Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T18:50:40.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WELFARE-MAXIMIZING OPERATIONAL MONETARY AND TAX POLICY RULES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

ROBERT KOLLMANN
ROBERT KOLLMANN*
Affiliation:
ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles, University of Paris XII and Centre for Economic Policy Research, United Kingdom
*
Address correspondence to: Robert Kollmann, European Centre for Advanced Research in Economics and Statistics, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 50, Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium; e-mail: robert_kollmann@yahoo.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper computes welfare-maximizing monetary and tax policy feedback rules in a calibrated dynamic general equilibrium model with sticky prices. The government makes exogenous final good purchases, levies a proportional income tax, and issues nominal one-period bonds. A quadratic approximation method is used to solve the model and to compute household welfare. Optimized policy has a strong anti-inflation stance and implies persistent fluctuations of the tax rate and of public debt. Very simple optimized policy rules, under which the interest rate just responds to inflation and the tax rate just responds to public debt, yield a welfare level very close to that generated by richer rules.

Keywords

Monetary PolicyFiscal PolicyWelfare
Type
ARTICLES
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 12 , Supplement S1: Dynamic Macroeconomic Theory , April 2008 , pp. 112 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aiyagari, Rao, Marcet, Albert, Sargent, Thomas, and Seppälä, Juha (2002) Optimal taxation without state-contingent debt. Journal of Political Economy 110, 1220–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benigno, Pierpaolo and Woodford, Michael (2003) Optimal monetary and fiscal policy: A linear quadratic approach. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 18, 277–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Guillermo (1983) Staggered prices in a utility maximizing framework. Journal of Monetary Economics 12, 383–398.Google Scholar
Chirac, Jacques (2004) Television interview given on Bastille Day, July 14, www.elysee.fr.Google Scholar
Chari, V., Larry, Christiano, and Kehoe, Patrick (1991) Optimal fiscal and monetary policy: Some recent results. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 23, 519–539.Google Scholar
Correia, Isabel, Nicolini, Juan Pablo, and Teles, Pedro (2001) Optimal Fiscal and Monetary Policy: Equivalence Results. Working paper, Bank of Portugal.Google Scholar
Erceg, Christopher, Henderson, Dale, and Levin, Andrew (2000) Optimal monetary policy with staggered wage and price contracts. Journal of Monetary Economics 46, 281–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, Kenneth (1998) Numerical Methods in Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jinill and Kim, Sunghyun (2001) Welfare Improving Tax Policies in a Two-Country Model. Working paper, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve.Google Scholar
Kollmann, Robert (1998) US trade balance dynamics: The role of fiscal policy and productivity shocks and of financial market linkages. Journal of International Money and Finance 17, 637–669.Google Scholar
Kollmann, Robert (2001) The exchange rate in a dynamic-optimizing business cycle model with nominal rigidities. Journal of International Economics 55, 243–262.Google Scholar
Kollmann, Robert (2002) Monetary policy rules in the open economy: Effects on welfare and business cycles. Journal of Monetary Economics 49, 989–1015.Google Scholar
Kollmann, Robert (2004a) Welfare effects of a monetary union: The role of trade openness. Journal of the European Economic Association 2, 289–301.Google Scholar
Kollmann, Robert (2004b) Welfare Maximizing Operational Monetary and Tax Policy Rules. CEPR discussion paper 4782.Google Scholar
Martins, Joaquim, Scarpetta, Stefano, and Pilat, Dirk (1996) Mark-up pricing, market structure and the business cycle. OECD Economic Studies 27, 71–105.Google Scholar
McCallum, , Bennett, (1999) Issues in the design of monetary policy rules. In Taylor, John and Woodford, Michael (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, pp. 1483–1530. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, Edward (1986) Theory ahead of business cycle measurement. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 10, 9–22.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank (1927) A contribution to the theory of taxation. Economic Journal 37, 47–61.Google Scholar
Rotemberg, Julio and Woodford, Michael (1997). An optimization-based framework for the evaluation of monetary policy. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 12, 297–346.Google Scholar
Schmitt-Grohé, Stephanie and Uribe, Martín (2004a) Optimal Simple and Implementable Monetary and Fiscal Rules. CEPR discussion paper 4334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt-Grohé, Stephanie and Uribe, Martín (2004b) Optimal fiscal and monetary policy under sticky prices. Journal of Economic Theory 114, 198–230.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher (2000) Second Order Accurate Solution of Discrete Time Dynamic Equilibrium Models. Working paper, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Siu, Henry (2004) Optimal fiscal and monetary policy with sticky prices. Journal of Monetary Economics 51, 575–607.Google Scholar
Taylor, John (1999a) Monetary Policy Rules. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John (1999b) Staggered price and wage setting in macroeconomics. In Taylor, John and Woodford, Michael (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, pp. 1009–1050. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Taylor, John (2000). The policy rule mix: A macroeconomic policy evaluation. In Calvo, Guillermo (ed.), Money, Capital Mobility, and Trade, pp. 505–518. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Woodford, Michael (1990). Public debt as private liquidity. American Economic Review 80, 382–388.Google Scholar