Economics: Monetary Policy by Rule or Discretion?

This lesson has not been reviewed.

Please purchase the lesson to review.

Monetary policy is a powerful tool. Small changes in the money supply can affect interest rates, the price level, and touch every aspect of the macro economy. So, is monetary policy best governed by rules so that it's predictable or is it best left completely to the discretion of Central Banks so they can respond to trouble as it arises? Rules or discretion? It's an old debate and we won't settle it here. We can however look more closely at the points of the argument.
Let's start with monetary policy rules. What might they look like? Well they might be specific targets for key variables like interest rates or inflation. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Bank of England follows an inflation rate target. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, an elected official who is the head of the Bank of England, governs the inflation rate by targeting it at some level, say 2%. And if the inflation rate goes above that target, it is the Exchequer's responsibility to restrict the growth of the money supply until prices come within the acceptable range. We can also have rules that target a combination of variables, like the Taylor Rule, often discussed by economists. The Taylor Rule says shoot for a target for the real interest rate, say 2%. However, if a gap opens in real gross domestic product so that it falls below its full employment level, then stimulate the economy by increasing the money supply. Also however, keep an eye on inflation, and if it goes above its target, say 2%, then restrict the growth of the money supply so as to bring inflation under control. You can have a Taylor Rule, you can have an inflation target; the idea here is just some rule that markets can count on.
Now on the other side you might say that discretionary policy could be very good for the economy. After all, things happen that require quick responses that maybe outside of some ban specified by law. For instance, it is argued by many economists that the rules the Fed was bound by during the time of the Great Depression made the Great Depression worst by forcing the Fed to restrict the growth of the money supply at the very time that people were trying to take money out of the banks and creating a liquidity crisis that closed banks and plunged the economy into despair. In modern times the Fed was able to respond very flexibly when the traumatic feeling in the economy after the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 sent people to their banks withdrawing money out of fear, and the Fed pumped liquidity into the system so that people can get the cash they wanted. In fact, the Fed made public announcements that plenty of liquidity would be available and there would be no runs on banks. This kind of flexibility in the event of an emergency is very, very good for the economy and made it possible for us to avoid banking trouble.
So on balance, which is better: the kind of flexibility that responds rapidly or the kind of rules that make things predictable? It depends on what you believe the biggest worries are. Some of the biggest arguments against flexibility are that it leaves monetary policy subject to being co-opted by politicians. After all, politicians at election time want people to feel good about the economy in the short term and they want to pump up the money supply, lower interest rates, and have a lot of easy credit. However, too much of that, and in the long run you have got a big hangover which can result in a lot of inflation. Also, there is the concern about lags. If you are trying to target making changes in the economy, well how do you know that the problem today will persist tomorrow? You are responding to an output gap but it may be closing for other reasons, and if you pump up the money supply to stimulate the economy, it may hit too late, too heavily, and create inflation. The problem with discretion is it gives too much power to politicians and the lags and predictability make it difficult to fine tune.
On the other hand, there are problems with rules. For one thing you lose flexibility. It was the rules the Fed was following that made the Great Depression worse perhaps. Moreover, it's difficult to specify the right rules. What is the right level for inflation? And a rule like the Taylor Rule is difficult to come up with and difficult to implement in practice.
Rules and discretion both have good things going for them. And yet neither of them is so definitively right for running monetary policy that it's been able to vanquish the other. We will continue this discussion probably for a long time about rules and discretion. And the reason is that monetary policy is so important to the economy, and we want to do it right.
Monetary and Fiscal Policy
Monetary Policy: The Mainstream
Hot Topic: Should Monetary Policy Be Made by Rule or Discretion? Page [1 of 1]