Giovanni P. Olivei

The Timing of Monetary Policy Shocks

A vast empirical literature has documented delayed and persistent effects of monetary policy shocks on output. We show that this finding results from the aggregation of output impulse responses that differ sharply depending on the timing of the shock: When the monetary policy shock takes place in the first two quarters of the year, the response of output is quick, sizable, and dies out at a relatively fast pace. In contrast, output responds very little when the shock takes place in the third or fourth quarter. We propose a potential explanation for the differential responses based on uneven staggering of wage contracts across quarters. Using a stylized dynamic general equilibrium model, we show that a very modest amount of uneven staggering can generate differences in output responses similar to those found in the data.

Wage Setting Patterns and Monetary Policy: International Evidence

Systematic differences in the timing of wage setting decisions among industrialized countries provide an ideal framework to study the importance of wage rigidity in the transmission of monetary policy. The Japanese Shunto presents the best-known case of bunching in wage setting decisions: From February to May, most firms set wages that remain in place until the following year; wage rigidity, thus, is relatively higher immediately after the Shunto. Similarly, in the United States, a large fraction of firms adjust wages in the last quarter of the calendar year. In contrast, wage agreements in Germany are well spread within the year, implying a relatively uniform degree of rigidity. We exploit variation in the timing of wage setting decisions within the year in Japan, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France to investigate the effects of monetary policy under different degrees of effective wage rigidity. Our findings lend support to the long-held, though scarcely tested, view that wage rigidity plays a key role in the transmission of monetary policy.

Estimation of Forward-Looking Relationships in Closed Form: An Application to the New Keynesian Phillips Curve

We illustrate the importance of placing model-consistent restrictions on expectations in the estimation of forward-looking Euler equations. In two-stage limited-information settings where first-stage estimates are used to proxy for expectations, parameter estimates can differ substantially, depending on whether these restrictions are imposed or not. This is shown in an application to the New Keynesian Phillips Curve (NKPC), first in a Monte Carlo exercise, and then on actual data. The closed-form (CF) estimates require by construction that expectations of inflation be model-consistent at all points in time, while the difference-equation (DE) estimates impose no model discipline on expectations. Between those two polar extremes there is a wide range of alternative DE specifications based on the same dynamic relationship that explicitly imposes model restrictions on expectations for a finite number of periods. In our application, these last estimates quickly converge to the CF estimates and illustrate that the DE estimates in Cogley and Sbordone (2008) are not robust to imposing modest model requirements on expectations. In particular, our estimates show that the NKPC is not purely forward-looking, and thus that time-varying trend inflation is insufficient to explain inflation persistence.

Closed-form estimates of the New Keynesian Phillips Curve with time-varying trend inflation

We compare estimates of the New Keynesian Phillips Curve (NKPC) when the curve is specified in two different ways. In the standard difference equation (DE) form, current inflation is a function of past inflation, expected future inflation, and real marginal costs. The alternative closed form (CF) specification explicitly solves the DE form to express inflation as a function of past inflation and a present-discounted value of current and expected future marginal costs. The CF specification places model-consistent constraints on expected future inflation that are not imposed in the DE form. In a Monte Carlo exercise, we show that estimating the CF version of the NKPC gives estimates that are much more efficient than the estimates obtained from the DE specification. We then compare DE and CF estimates of the NKPC with time-varying trend inflation on actual data. The data and estimation methodology are the same as in Cogley and Sbordone (2008). We show that DE and CF estimates differ substantially and have very different implications for inflation dynamics. As in Cogley and Sbordone, it is possible to estimate DE specifications of the NKPC where lagged inflation plays no role once trend inflation is taken into account. The CF estimates of the NKPC, however, typically imply as large a role for lagged inflation as for expected future inflation. These estimates thus suggest that trend inflation is not in itself sufficient to explain the persistent dynamics of inflation.

A Principal Components Approach to Estimating Labor Market Pressure and its Implications for Inflation

We build a summary measure of labor market pressure that captures the common movement among a variety of labor market series. Obtained as the labor market series’ first principal component, this measure explains a large portion of the variability of the underlying series. For this reason, it is a good summary indicator of labor market pressure. We show that the unemployment rate gap has tracked this summary measure closely over the past 35 years. At times, however, the summary measure and the unemployment rate gap have sent somewhat different signals. In terms of relying on the principal components summary measure vis-a-vis the unemployment rate gap for explaining inflation, we argue that the recent evolution of wage inflation is more consistent with the evolution of the summary measure than with the unemployment rate gap. This is because over the past two years the principal components summary measure has been suggesting less labor market pressure than the unemployment rate gap. Over the past 35 years, however, there is little systematic evidence favoring the summary measure of labor market pressure over the unemployment rate gap as a predictor of inflation.