Macroeconomic stabilization: views of activists versus non-activists
Agreement: There has been less instability since 1945 than prior to 1940; the objectives should be smaller fluctuations, high employment, growth of output, price stability.
Issue is how to achieve.
2 strategies:
Activist Non-activist
Adjust policy to No discretion --
reduce instability
follow set rules
Views:
Source of instability: "Shocks" -- economy Bad policy often the
inherently unstable source of instability
Speed of self-correction: Slow, therefore high cost
OK if not slowed by bad policy
Timing of discretionary policy:
Difficult but possible Ineffective -- more often wrong than right
Impact of rules Rules would increase Rules would reduce
instability
instability
How: Use leading indicators, Policy ineffective because of
forecasting models, to expectations, lags, so set
set policy rules instead of discretion:
for Money supply growth
[or instead use: or Money GDP growth
commodity prices or price level
or slope of yield curve
or exchange rates] [i.e. because of velocity v changes Money supply would have erratic
effects]
Note: Differing views reflect differences of opinion both about how the institutions of economic policy making work, and about what the evidence suggests is how the economy itself works. Proponents of rules tend to be suspicious of ability of institutions (Federal Government, Federal Reserve) to act in an unbiassed way.