IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcfc/2021-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Potential output, the Taylor Rule and the Fed

Author

Listed:
  • Omar Licandro
  • Francesca Vinci

Abstract

The Taylor Rule is widely considered a useful tool to summarise the Fed's policy, but the information set employed in practice to assess the state of economic activity is still an object of debate. The contribution of this paper is to provide evidence in favour of the following hypotheses. First, the original Taylor Rule is a valid representation of the actual working of the Fed's monetary policy. Second, the real time beliefs of the Fed concerning potential output can be proxied by the estimates published by the Congressional Budget Office. Third, potential output estimates were revised down following the Great Recession.

Suggested Citation

  • Omar Licandro & Francesca Vinci, 2021. "Potential output, the Taylor Rule and the Fed," Discussion Papers 2021/03, University of Nottingham, Centre for Finance, Credit and Macroeconomics (CFCM).
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcfc:2021/03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cfcm/documents/papers/2021/21-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Mauricio Ulate, 2017. "Secular Stagnation: Policy Options and the Cyclical Sensitivity in Estimates of Potential Output," Working Papers 01/2017, National Bank of Ukraine.
    2. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin S. Eichenbaum & Mathias Trabandt, 2015. "Understanding the Great Recession," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 110-167, January.
    3. Francesca Vinci & Omar Licandro, 2020. "Switching-track after the Great Recession," Discussion Papers 2020/02, University of Nottingham, Centre for Finance, Credit and Macroeconomics (CFCM).
    4. Bernanke, Ben S. & Boivin, Jean, 2003. "Monetary policy in a data-rich environment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 525-546, April.
    5. John B. Taylor, 2011. "Macroeconomic Lessons from the Great Deviation," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2010, volume 25, pages 387-395, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Congressional Budget Office, 2014. "Revisions to CBO's Projection of Potential Output Since 2007," Reports 45150, Congressional Budget Office.
    7. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Mauricio Ulate, 2018. "The Cyclical Sensitivity in Estimates of Potential Output," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 49(2 (Fall)), pages 343-441.
    8. Congressional Budget Office, 2014. "Revisions to CBO's Projection of Potential Output Since 2007," Reports 45150, Congressional Budget Office.
    9. Congressional Budget Office, 2014. "Revisions to CBO's Projection of Potential Output Since 2007," Reports 45150, Congressional Budget Office.
    10. Orphanides, Athanasios, 2003. "Historical monetary policy analysis and the Taylor rule," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 983-1022, July.
    11. Taylor, John B., 1993. "Discretion versus policy rules in practice," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 195-214, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Donato Masciandaro, 2023. "How Elastic and Predictable Money Should Be: Flexible Monetary Policy Rules from the Great Moderation to the New Normal Times (1993-2023)," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 23196, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesca Vinci & Omar Licandro, 2020. "Switching-track after the Great Recession," Discussion Papers 2020/02, University of Nottingham, Centre for Finance, Credit and Macroeconomics (CFCM).
    2. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Mauricio Ulate, 2017. "Secular Stagnation: Policy Options and the Cyclical Sensitivity in Estimates of Potential Output," Working Papers 01/2017, National Bank of Ukraine.
    3. Régis Barnichon & Christian Matthes & Alexander Ziegenbein, 2018. "The Financial Crisis at 10: Will We Ever Recover?," FRBSF Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    4. Laurence Ball, 2014. "Long-term damage from the Great Recession in OECD countries," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 11(2), pages 149-160, September.
    5. Blanchard, Olivier & Lorenzoni, Guido & L’Huillier, Jean-Paul, 2017. "Short-run effects of lower productivity growth. A twist on the secular stagnation hypothesis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 639-649.
    6. John G. Fernald, 2015. "Productivity and Potential Output before, during, and after the Great Recession," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-51.
    7. William D. Craighead, 2019. "Hysteresis In A New Keynesian Model," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(2), pages 1082-1097, April.
    8. Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy, Alex, 2008. "Monetary Policy Evaluation in Real Time: Forward-Looking Taylor Rules Without Forward-Looking Data," MPRA Paper 11352, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Manuel Gonzalez-Astudillo, 2017. "GDP Trend-cycle Decompositions Using State-level Data," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-051, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    10. Elfsbacka Schmöller, Michaela & Spitzer, Martin, 2020. "Endogenous TFP, business cycle persistence and the productivity slowdown in the euro area," Working Paper Series 2401, European Central Bank.
    11. David Kiefer & Ivan Mendieta-Muñoz & Codrina Rada & Rudiger von Arnim, 2020. "Secular Stagnation and Income Distribution Dynamics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 189-207, June.
    12. Aastveit, Knut Are & Trovik, Tørres, 2014. "Estimating the output gap in real time: A factor model approach," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 180-193.
    13. Fontanari, Claudia & Palumbo, Antonella & Salvatori, Chiara, 2020. "Potential Output in Theory and Practice: A Revision and Update of Okun's Original Method," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 247-266.
    14. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Mauricio Ulate, 2018. "The Cyclical Sensitivity in Estimates of Potential Output," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 49(2 (Fall)), pages 343-441.
    15. Willem Van Zandweghe, 2015. "Monetary Policy Shocks and Aggregate Supply," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q III, pages 31-56.
    16. Flavia Dantas, 2016. "Normalizing the Fed Funds Rate: The Fed’s Unjustified Rationale," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_876, Levy Economics Institute.
    17. U. Devrim Demirel, 2020. "Labor Market Effects of Tax Changes in Times of High and Low Unemployment: Working Paper 2020-05," Working Papers 56522, Congressional Budget Office.
    18. Flavia Dantas & L. Randall Wray, 2017. "Full Employment: Are We There Yet?," Economics Public Policy Brief Archive ppb_142, Levy Economics Institute.
    19. Jung, Alexander, 2018. "Does McCallum’s rule outperform Taylor’s rule during the financial crisis?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 9-21.
    20. Federico Di Pace & Matthias Hertweck, 2019. "Labor Market Frictions, Monetary Policy, and Durable Goods," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 32, pages 274-304, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    monetary policy; Taylor Rule; Great Recession; Economic recovery;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:not:notcfc:2021/03. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Hilary Hughes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cfnotuk.html .

    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.