1997
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.38122
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Evolution of Macro Models at the Federal Reserve Board

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(4 reference statements)
0
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Taylor's prescription for monetary policy was a 0.5 weight on inflation which would correspond to a 1.5 coefficient in the above equation. The coefficient on the GDP gap is slightly below his original weight of 0.5 and significantly below the weight of 1.0 suggested by Brayton [1997]. A joint (Wald) test of the hypothesis that both coefficients match Taylor's prescription cannot be rejected at any reasonable significance level.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Taylor's prescription for monetary policy was a 0.5 weight on inflation which would correspond to a 1.5 coefficient in the above equation. The coefficient on the GDP gap is slightly below his original weight of 0.5 and significantly below the weight of 1.0 suggested by Brayton [1997]. A joint (Wald) test of the hypothesis that both coefficients match Taylor's prescription cannot be rejected at any reasonable significance level.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…If we suppose * 2 r = , * 2 π = , 0.5 g = and 0.5 h = , the equation above becomes the original form of the policy rule advanced by Taylor (1993). Brayton et al (1997) set 1 g = and 0.5 h = , and conducted an empirical research on the Taylor rule again. According to different parameter values of g and h , we can set four rules.…”
Section: The Historical Analysis Of Taylor Rule In Chinamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Forward-looking behavior, however, is more pervasive in FRB/US and JEM than in the AWM: in the first two models, the key behavioral equations are derived from optimization problems in which costs of deviating from equilibrium are weighed against polynomial adjustment costs-that is, costs of adjusting the levels and higher-order differences in variables. Brayton et al (1997) contains a discussion of the use of polynomial adjustment costs in FRB/US and Fujiwara et al (2005) discuss their use in JEM. Important areas of explicit forwardlooking behavior in FRB/US and JEM include consumer and business investment spending, and wage and price setting.…”
Section: Models: Similarities and Differencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper and the three that follow consider the effectiveness of a number of proposals for reducing the consequences of the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates using simulations of the policy models of three major central banks: the Bank of Japan's JEM model (Fujiwara et al, 2005); the European Central Bank's Area-Wide Model (Fagan et al, 2001) and the Federal Reserve's FRB/US model (Brayton et al, 1997). Our goal is to look for policies that work well across a number of models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%