Does market incompleteness radically transform the properties of monetary economies? Using an analytically tractable heterogeneous agent New Keynesian (HANK) model, we show that whether incomplete markets resolve "policy paradoxes" in the representative agent New Keynesian model (RANK) depends primarily on the cyclicality of income risk, rather than incomplete markets per se. Incomplete markets reduce the effectiveness of forward guidance and multipliers in a liquidity trap only if risk is procyclical. Acyclical or countercyclical risk amplifies these puzzles relative to RANK. Cyclicality of risk also affects determinacy: procyclical risk permits determinacy even under an interest rate peg, while countercyclical income risk generates indeterminacy even if the Taylor principle holds. Finally, we uncover a new dimension of monetary-fiscal interaction. Since fiscal policy affects the cyclicality of income risk, it influences the effects of monetary policy even when "passive."

Using an analytically tractable heterogeneous agent New Keynesian model, we show that whether incomplete markets resolve New Keynesian “paradoxes” depends on the cyclicality of income risk. Incomplete markets reduce the effectiveness of forward guidance and multipliers in a liquidity trap only with procyclical risk. Countercyclical risk amplifies these “puzzles.” Procyclical risk permits determinacy under a peg; countercyclical risk may generate indeterminacy even under the Taylor principle. By affecting the cyclicality of risk, even “passive” fiscal policy influences the effects of monetary policy.

We analyse monetary policy in a model where temporary shocks can permanently scar the economy’s productive capacity. Workers lose skill while unemployed and are costly to retrain, generating multiple steady-state unemployment rates. Following a large shock, unless monetary policy acts aggressively and quickly enough to prevent a significant rise in unemployment, hiring falls to a point where the economy recovers slowly at best – at worst, it falls into a permanent unemployment trap. Monetary policy can only avoid these outcomes if it commits in a timely manner to more accommodative policy in the future. Timely commitment is essential as the effectiveness of monetary policy is state dependent: once the recession has left substantial scars, monetary policy cannot speed up a slow recovery, or escape from an unemployment trap.

The views expressed in the Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Economics or of the University of Delaware. Working Papers have not undergone any formal review and approval and are circulated for discussion purposes only and should not be quoted without permission. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and should be directed to the corresponding author. Copyright belongs to the author(s).

We evaluate the impact of increased income uncertainty and financial liberalisation in the US on consumption volatility and household welfare. We estimate Euler equations and measure the volatility of unpredictable changes in consumption as the squared residuals. We directly control for liquidity constraints using Survey of Consumer Finances data on access to credit, and document that despite the increase in household debt between 1983 and 2007, there was no decline in the proportion of liquidity constrained households. Consumption volatility increased significantly over this period, especially for liquidity constrained households, indicating substantial welfare losses.