Monopolistic Distortions Research Articles

Trade policy: Home market effect versus terms-of-trade externality

We study trade policy in a two-sector Krugman (1980) trade model, allowing for wage, import and export subsidies/taxes. We study non-cooperative trade policies, first for each individual instrument and then for the situation where all instruments can be set simultaneously, and contrast those with the efficient allocation. We show that in this general context there are four motives for non-cooperative trade policies: the correction of monopolistic distortions; the terms-of-trade manipulation; the delocation motive for protection (home market effect); the fiscal-burden-shifting motive. The Nash equilibrium when all instruments are available is characterized by first-best-level wage subsidies, and inefficient import subsidies and export taxes, which aim at relocating firms to the other economy and improving terms of trade. Thus, the dominating incentives for non-cooperative trade policies are the fiscal-burden-shifting motives and terms-of-trade effects.

OIL SHOCKS AND OPTIMAL MONETARY POLICY

This paper studies how monetary policy should react to oil shocks in a microfounded model with staggered price-setting and oil as an input in a CES production function. In particular, we extend Benigno and Woodford [Journal of the European Economic Association 3 (6) (2005), 1–52] to obtain a second-order approximation to the expected utility of the representative household when the steady state is distorted and the economy is hit by oil price shocks. The main result is that oil price shocks generate an endogenous trade-off between inflation and output stabilization when oil has low substitutability in production. We also find, in contrast to Benigno and Woodford, that this trade-off is reduced, but not eliminated, when we get rid of the effects of monopolistic distortions in the steady state. Moreover, the size of the endogenous “cost-push” shock generated by fluctuations in the oil price increases when it is more difficult to substitute other factors for oil.

Trade Policy: Home Market Effect Versus Terms-of-Trade Externality

We study trade policy in a two-sector Krugman (1980) trade model, allowing for production, import and export subsidies/taxes. We consider non-cooperative and cooperative trade policy, first for each individual instrument and then for the situation where all instruments can be set simultaneously, and contrast those with the efficient allocation. While previous studies have identified the home market externality, which gives incentives to agglomerate firms in the domestic economy, as the driving force behind non-cooperative trade policy in this model, we show that this, in fact, is not the case. Instead, the incentives for a non-cooperative trade policy arise from the desire to eliminate monopolistic distortions and to improve domestic terms of trade. As a consequence, terms-of-trade externalities remain the only motive for international trade agreements in the Krugman (1980) model once a complete set of instruments is available.

Keeping up with the Joneses and the welfare effects of monetary policy

This paper examines the implications of “keeping up with the Joneses” preferences (jealousy) for the welfare effects of monetary policy. I develop a New Keynesian model, where households are jealous and the central bank follows the Taylor rule. I show that the welfare effects of monetary policy over time depend significantly on the relative strength of the consumption externality caused by jealousy and the monopolistic distortion. When a first-order approximation of the utility function is used, then the main result is the following: If jealousy (the monopolistic distortion) dominates, then a decrease in the interest rate reduces (increases) welfare in the short run, but increases (reduces) welfare in the medium run. However, the use of a second-order approximation changes the sign of the overall welfare effect of monetary policy if the initial level of employment is at the optimal level or just below it.

Keeping Up with the Joneses and the Welfare Effects of Monetary Policy

This paper examines the implications of keeping up with the Joneses preferences (jealousy) for the welfare effects of monetary policy. I develop a New Keynesian model, where households are jealous and the central bank follows the Taylor rule. I show that the welfare effects of monetary policy over time depend significantly on the relative strength of the consumption externality caused by jealousy and the monopolistic distortion. If jealousy (the monopolistic distortion) dominates, then a decrease in the interest rate reduces (increases) welfare in the short run, but increases (reduces) welfare in the medium run.

Oil Shocks and Optimal Monetary Policy

In practice, central banks have been confronted with a trade-off between stabilising inflation and output when dealing with rising oil prices. This contrasts with the result in the standard New Keynesian model that ensuring complete price stability is the optimal thing to do, even when an oil shock leads to large output drops. To reconcile this apparent contradiction, this paper investigates how monetary policy should react to oil shocks in a microfounded model with staggered price-setting and with oil as an input in a CES production function. In particular, we extend Benigno and Woodford (2005) to obtain a second order approximation to the expected utility of the representative household when the steady state is distorted and the economy is hit by oil price shocks. The main result is that oil price shocks generate an endogenous trade-off between inflation and output stabilisation when oil has low substitutability in production. Therefore, it becomes optimal for the monetary authority to stabilise partially the effects of oil shocks on inflation and some inflation is desirable. We also find, in contrast to Benigno and Woodford (2005), that this trade-off is reduced, but not eliminated, when we get rid of the effects of monopolistic distortions in the steady state. Moreover, the size of the endogenous cost-push shock generated by fluctuations in the oil price increases when oil is more difficult to substitute by other factors.

Trade Policy: Home Market Effect Vs. Terms of Trade Externality

We study trade policy in a two-sector Krugman-type trade model with home market effects. We allow for three different instruments: tariffs, export taxes and production subsidies. For each instrument, we consider unilateral trade policy without retaliation. We find - contrary to the results of previous studies - that production subsidies are always inefficiently low and driven by the incentives to improve the (welfare relevant) terms of trade. For tariffs and export taxes we show that results depend crucially on the (in)efficiency of the free trade allocation. When starting from an allocation that is distorted because of monopolistic competition, the home market effect (and in the case of export taxes also the desire to correct for the monopolistic inefficiency) induces policy makers to set a tariff (an export subsidy). However, when monopolistic distortions are corrected, terms of trade effects dominate the choice of trade policy and lead to an import subsidy (an export tax).

On the growth and welfare effects of monopolistic distortions

The most fundamental proposition about growth and competition is that there is a tradeoff between static welfare and long-term growth. This paper reconsiders this basic proposition in an expanding variety endogenous growth model with competitive markets for “old” innovative products and for a traditional good. We shed light on some implications of monopolistic distortions which tend to be ignored by standard models. First, no growth may be better than some growth, since modest positive growth potentially requires sizeable static welfare losses. Second, the economy may converge to a steady state with zero growth, even though a locally saddle-point stable steady state with positive growth exists if the initial share of “cheap” competitive markets is sufficiently high, as this implies a relatively low demand for “expensive” innovative goods. Third, such a “no-growth trap” may happen in a world economy made up of several countries engaged in free trade with each other. The policy implications are that growth-enhancing policies may be misguided and that quick deregulation as well as quick trade liberalization can lead to stagnation in the long term.

Monetary policy and welfare in a small open economy

This paper analyzes optimal monetary policy in a small open economy featuring monopolistic competition and nominal rigidities. It shows that the utility-based loss function for this economy can be written as a quadratic expression of domestic inflation, output gap and real exchange rate. The presence of an internal monopolistic distortion and a terms of trade externality drives optimal policy away from domestic inflation targeting and affects the optimal level of exchange rate volatility. When domestic and foreign goods are close substitutes for each other, the optimal policy rule implies lower real exchange rate volatility than a domestic inflation targeting regime. The reverse is true when the elasticity of substitution between goods is low.

Monetary conservatism and fiscal policy

Does an inflation conservative central bank à la Rogoff (1985) remain desirable in a setting with endogenous fiscal policy? To provide an answer we study monetary and fiscal policy games without commitment in a dynamic, stochastic sticky-price economy with monopolistic distortions. Monetary policy determines nominal interest rates and fiscal policy provides public goods generating private utility. We find that lack of fiscal commitment gives rise to excessive public spending. The optimal inflation rate internalizing this distortion is positive, but lack of monetary commitment generates too much inflation. A conservative monetary authority thus remains desirable. When fiscal policy is determined before monetary policy each period, the monetary authority should focus exclusively on stabilizing inflation. Monetary conservatism then eliminates the steady state biases associated with lack of monetary and fiscal commitment and leads to stabilization policy that is close to optimal.

SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STRENGTHENING PATENT PROTECTION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Since the 1980s, the pharmaceutical industry has benefited substantially from a series of policy changes that have strengthened the patent protection for brand‐name drugs as a result of the industry's political influence. This paper incorporates special interest politics into a quality‐ladder model to analyze the policy‐makers' tradeoff between the socially optimal patent length and campaign contributions. The welfare analysis suggests that the presence of a pharmaceutical lobby distorting patent protection is socially undesirable in a closed‐economy setting but may improve social welfare in a multi‐country setting, which features an additional efficiency tradeoff between monopolistic distortion and international free riding on innovations.

Jealousy and monetary policy

The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of jealousy for the welfare effects of monetary policy. Jealousy implies that consumption is like pollution: overconsumption may occur because households do not internalize the costs of their consumption to others. This externality opens the door for a beneficial monetary policy intervention. I show that the welfare effects of monetary policy depend on jealousy, the monopolistic distortion and the utility of real balances. If households are “too jealous,” a rise in the money supply reduces welfare by increasing consumption that is already inefficiently high.

Capital and Macroeconomic Instabilty in a Discrete-Time Model With Forward-Looking Interest Rate Rules

The authors establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for local real determinacy in a discrete-time production economy with monopolistic competition and a quadratic price adjustment cost under forward-looking policy rules, for the case where capital is in exogenously fixed supply and the case with endogenous capital accumulation. Using these conditions, they show that (i) indeterminacy is more likely to occur with a greater share of payment to capital in value-added production cost; (ii) indeterminacy can be more or less likely to occur with constant capital than with variable capital; (iii) indeterminacy is more likely to occur when prices are modelled as jump variables than as predetermined variables; (iv) indeterminacy is less likely to occur with a greater degree of steady-state monopolistic distortions; and (v) indeterminacy is less likely to occur with a greater degree of price stickiness or with a higher steady-state inflation rate. In contrast to some existing research, the authors' analysis indicates that capital tends to lead to macroeconomic instability by affecting firms' pricing behavior in product markets rather than households' arbitrage activity in asset markets even under forward-looking policy rules.

Capital and macroeconomic instability in a discrete-time model with forward-looking interest rate rules

We establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for local real determinacy in a discrete-time production economy with monopolistic competition and a quadratic price adjustment cost under forward-looking policy rules, for the case where capital is in exogenously fixed supply and the case with endogenous capital accumulation. Using these conditions, we show that (i) indeterminacy is more likely to occur with a greater share of payment to capital in value-added production cost; (ii) indeterminacy can be more or less likely to occur with constant capital than with variable capital; (iii) indeterminacy is more likely to occur when prices are modelled as jump variables than as predetermined variables; (iv) indeterminacy is less likely to occur with a greater degree of steady-state monopolistic distortions; and (v) indeterminacy is less likely to occur with a greater degree of price stickiness or with a higher steady-state inflation rate. In contrast to some existing research, our analysis indicates that capital tends to lead to macroeconomic instability by affecting firms’ pricing behavior in product markets rather than households’ arbitrage activity in asset markets even under forward-looking policy rules.

The inflation tax in an open economy with imperfect competition

This paper studies the national welfare maximizing inflation tax in an open economy with imperfect competition. It shows that the presence of a monopolistic distortion dampens the incentive to engage in strategic use of the inflation tax. If this dampening effect is strong enough, monetary policy becomes completely inward-looking, restoring the Friedman rule as an equilibrium strategy regardless of the actions of the foreign government. This aspect of the policy interaction—driven entirely by the presence of imperfect competition—is important because it determines the underlying structure of the policy game and is therefore crucial for determining whether or not there exist welfare gains from international monetary cooperation.

Monetary Conservatism and Fiscal Policy

Does an inflation conservative central bank a la Rogoff (1985) remain desirable in a setting with endogenous fiscal policy? To provide an answer we study monetary and fiscal policy games without commitment in a dynamic stochastic sticky price economy with monopolistic distortions. Monetary policy determines nominal interest rates and fiscal policy provides public goods generating private utility. We find that lack of fiscal commitment gives rise to excessive public spending. The optimal inflation rate internalizing this distortion is positive, but lack of monetary commitment robustly generates too much inflation. A conservative monetary authority thus remains desirable. Exclusive focus on inflation by the central bank recoups large part - in some cases all - of the steady state welfare losses associated with lack of monetary and fiscal commitment. An inflation conservative central bank tends to improve also the conduct of stabilization policy.

Monetary Conservatism and Fiscal Policy

Does an inflation conservative central bank a la Rogoff (1985) remain desirable in a setting with endogenous fiscal policy? To provide an answer we study monetary and fiscal policy games without commitment in a dynamic stochastic sticky price economy with monopolistic distortions. Monetary policy determines nominal interest rates and fiscal policy provides public goods generating private utility. We find that lack of fiscal commitment gives rise to excessive public spending. The optimal inflation rate internalizing this distortion is positive, but lack of monetary commitment robustly generates too much inflation. A conservative monetary authority thus remains desirable. Exclusive focus on inflation by the central bank recoups large part - in some cases all - of the steady state welfare losses associated with lack of monetary and fiscal commitment. An inflation conservative central bank tends to improve also the conduct of stabilization policy.

Inflation targeting and nominal-income-growth targeting: When and why are they suboptimal?

We compare optimal and simple interest-rate rules. Our model features optimizing agents, monopolistic competition in both product and labor markets, and one-period nominal contracts (for wages alone or for both wages and prices) signed before shocks are known. Exact solutions ensure that we obtain correct welfare rankings. Optimal rules maximize the unconditional expected utility of the representative agent with commitment subject to the information set of the policymaker. Even with monopolistic distortions, the optimal full-information rule makes the economy mimic the hypothetical full-flexibility equilibrium. Strict versions of inflation targeting, nominal-income-growth targeting, and other such simple rules are suboptimal under both full and partial information but flexible versions are optimal under certain partial-information assumptions. Nominal-income-growth targeting dominates inflation targeting for plausible parameter values.

Vertically Integrated North–South Trade and the Redux Model

AbstractThe paper uses the framework of Obstfeld and Rogoff's Redux model to study the impact of monetary shocks on exchange rate, terms of trade, and welfare in the context of a North–South trade. The authors show that a relative Northern monetary expansion can depreciate or appreciate its currency depending on whether the consumption elasticity of money demand and the degree of monopolistic distortion are low or high enough. This shock has asymmetric effects on welfare in such a way that “beggar‐thyself” or “beggar‐thy‐neighbor” effects always occur.

Comments on “Monetary policy rules and exchange rate flexibility in a simple dynamic general equilibrium model”

This very nice paper clearly fits in Devereux’s agenda of promoting exchange rate stability and international monetary cooperation as a better alternative to floating exchange rates and independent, uncoordinated policies. Our first comment has to do with whether or not the paper actually accomplishes this goal. A reader who is familiar with Benigno and Benigno’s (2003) work immediately recognizes from the setup of Devereux’s model that mimicking the flexible price equilibrium under flexible exchange rates is the optimal policy that central banks should commit to pursue to maximize welfare. All assumptions that ensure this result (along with a very elegant analytical solution of the model) are in place: unitary elasticity of substitution between domestic and foreign goods, purchasing power parity (PPP), log utility, subsidies that offset the monopolistic distortion in steady state. Given that the model delivers a clear indication as for what central banks should do, all other policy rules are bound to produce results that are inferior (or at best equal) to those generated by the independent pursuit of the flexible price allocation. Hence, it is not clear to us that the setup of the paper is the best one to argue in favor of exchange rate pegs and policy coordination. Doing so by comparing the outcome under what Devereux calls a cooperative peg to constant money growth rules is not convincing, as one is left wondering why central banks would want to follow such money growth rules in the first place. Perhaps, the more interesting question is how far a properly designed regime of fixed exchange rates leaves the economy from the performance under floating rates and optimal policies. Here, the answer is not far at all.’ The quantitative difference is quite small on welfare grounds.