IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v88y1996i1-2p83-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agent Heterogeneity and Consensual Decision Making on the Federal Open Market Committee

Author

Listed:
  • Krause, George A

Abstract

The consensual aspects of decision making are essential for understanding policy made by administrative organizations that take the form of a commission or board. Consensual decision making reflects the degree of policy cohesion exhibited by high-level officials within administrative organizations. It is proposed here that this type of behavior may differ between heterogeneous agents. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve System serves as a salient setting for testing these propositions in a time series context. The empirical results indicate that major intra-institutional differences exist between Board of Governor (BOG) and Regional (RBP) members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) regarding consensual behavior. In terms of policy decision making, the econometric evidence clearly demonstrates that the consensual behavior of these agents are fundamentally different from one another. This in turn has important implications for the study of other commission and board policy making bodies that consist of agents who are not all homogeneous. Copyright 1996 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Krause, George A, 1996. "Agent Heterogeneity and Consensual Decision Making on the Federal Open Market Committee," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 88(1-2), pages 83-101, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:88:y:1996:i:1-2:p:83-101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ansgar Belke & Barbara Schnurbein, 2012. "European monetary policy and the ECB rotation model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 289-323, April.
    2. Mark Harris & Paul Levine & Christopher Spencer, 2011. "A decade of dissent: explaining the dissent voting behavior of Bank of England MPC members," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 413-442, March.
    3. Thomas L. Hogan, 2022. "The calculus of dissent: Bias and diversity in FOMC projections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 105-135, April.
    4. Agam Gupta & Biswatosh Saha & Uttam K. Sarkar, 2017. "Emergent Heterogeneity in Keyword Valuation in Sponsored Search Markets: A Closer-to-Practice Perspective," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 50(4), pages 687-710, December.
    5. Henry W. Chappell & Rob Roy Mcgregor & Todd A. Vermilyea, 2014. "Power‐Sharing in Monetary Policy Committees: Evidence from the United Kingdom and Sweden," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(4), pages 665-692, June.
    6. Christian Fahrholz & Philipp Mohl, 2004. "EMU-enlargement and the Reshaping of Decision-making within the ECB Governing Council: A Voting-Power Analysis," Eastward Enlargement of the Euro-zone Working Papers wp23, Free University Berlin, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, revised 01 Jun 2004.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:88:y:1996:i:1-2:p:83-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.