IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed018/577.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sticky Prices versus Sticky Information: Does It Matter For Policy Paradoxes?

Author

Listed:
  • Gauti Eggertsson

    (Brown University)

  • Vaishali Garga

    (Brown University)

Abstract

This paper shows that government spending multiplier at the zero lower bound (ZLB) is larger under sticky information than under sticky prices. Similarly, well known paradoxes, e.g., the paradox of toil and the paradox of flexibility become more severe under sticky information. These results depend crucially on the duration of the fiscal policy stimulus relative to the fundamental shock in the economy. Such policy coordination is all the more important in the sticky information framework. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, a number of papers documented that fiscal policy is extremely effective to increase demand at the ZLB. In particular, the classic government spending multiplier is greater than one, while under normal circumstances it is not for then monetary policy can do the job via interest rate cuts. Examples include Eggertsson (2011), Christiano, Eichenbaum and Rebelo (2009), Woodford (2011). The literature also uncovered peculiar paradoxes, such as the paradox of toil (Eggertsson (2010)) and the paradox of flexibility (Bhattarai, Eggertsson and Schoenle (2014)). These results could be interpreted either as a serious challenge to the conventional wisdom or reflect some fundamental flaws of the New Keynesian framework. These results were, however, derived under the assumption that prices are sticky, as in Calvo (1983). It has long been recognized that the Calvo model of price setting has many peculiar features. This led researchers to explore alternatives, such as information frictions. One of the most prominent proposal to replace the New Keynesian Phillips curve based upon Calvo prices is the assumption of sticky information, proposed by Mankiw and Reis (2001). According to their hypothesis, firms adjust their prices slowly because they do not continuously update their information set. Mankiw and Reis argued that this alternative assumption helps explain the data better along certain dimensions. A very natural question, in the light of the radical findings documented in the Calvo model at the ZLB, is if these results carry over to a setting where information rigidities are assumed instead of sticky prices. The main conclusion of this paper is that the answer is yes. In an important and intriguing recent paper, Kiley (2016), documents experiments in which the fiscal policy results of the Calvo model are overturned upon assuming informational frictions as in Mankiw and Reis. The thought experiment Kiley conducts is as follows: Suppose the Central Bank follows an interest rate peg for 100 periods. What happens if the government increases spending for 1, 2, . . . upto 25 periods? What happens if taxes are increased for 1 to 25 periods? Kiley documents that while under Calvo prices the predictions are in line with the existing literature at the ZLB, the predictions are different under informational frictions. In particular, the government spending multiplier is small, tax multiplier is negative and the paradox of flexibility disappears. Kiley’s experiment is referred to in this paper as an interest rate peg experiment (PEG-EX). Kiley interprets these findings as suggesting that the sticky-information model is free from policy paradoxes, and thus to be favored over the Calvo model. Here, instead, we argue that these findings are an artifact of the thought experiment considered. The paradoxes in the sticky information framework in fact get even stronger in policy experiments that correspond more closely to those considered in the existing literature. This paper compares sticky prices and sticky information doing a different experiment. This experiment is identical to the one conducted in Eggertsson (2011), Christiano, Eichenbaum and Rebelo (2009), Eggertsson (2010), Woodford (2011). The ZLB is binding due to exogenous fundamental shocks. Once the shocks are over, the policy is given by a simple inflation target (which is missed for the duration of the shocks, due to the ZLB). This experiment is referred to as ZLB experiment (ZLB-EX). This paper documents that the results derived in the literature under sticky prices in the ZLB-EX are even more extreme if sticky prices are replaced with sticky information. The government spending multiplier becomes larger, and the paradox of toil and flexibility become more pronounced. This is because in the purely forward looking sticky-price model, current policy leaves expectations of future variables unchanged. Hence, there is only a "direct" effect of current policy on current output. In the backward looking sticky-information model, however, current policy has an additional "indirect" effect on current output, which comes from its effect on the expectations of future variables. While this may seem to contradict Kiley’s findings, it does not. Instead it clarifies that Kiley’s PEG-EX is a fundamentally different experiment than done in the existing literature. What is particularly subtle – and interesting – about the comparison, and likely to trigger confusion, is that under sticky prices the ZLB-EX and PEG-EX lead to exactly the same result. It is only when assuming sticky information that the results of the ZLB-EX and the PEG-EX are different. This does not have anything to do with the nature of the nominal frictions. Instead, it is a consequence of the fact that the sticky-information model has infinite number of endogenous state variables. Meanwhile the Calvo model is purely forward looking. The presence of endogenous state variables in the sticky-information model implies that comparing the reaction of an economy assuming an exogenous interest rate peg, versus the reaction of the economy if the central bank’s policy is bounded by zero due to fundamental shocks, leads to very different results. The same does not apply for perfectly forward looking systems like the Calvo model of price stickiness. This paper first shows analytical examples that clarify the intuition behind these findings. It then moves to numerical examples that replicate Kiley’s results. These examples confirm that Kiley’s results are driven by the difference in experiments being conducted rather than anything fundamental about the assumption of price stickiness. Arguably, the ZLB-EX is more economically relevant than PEG-EX. It seems of more limited economic interest – at least in the context of the crisis that started in 2008 – to explore the behavior of New Keynesian models if the short-term interest rate is temporarily pegged for no apparent reasons. Instead, the most economically interesting experiment appears to be when the interest rate is pegged due to the fact that the ZLB is binding on account of a fundamental recessionary shock that prevents the central bank from achieving its objective of stabilizing inflation and output. In a numerical exercise, the two models are calibrated to produce a 10% drop in output and 2% annual deflation on impact. It clearly demonstrates that in the ZLB-EX, government spending is more expansionary at zero interest rate than at positive interest rate and that tax cuts are contractionary at the ZLB, in both the models of nominal stickiness. Moreover, these paradoxes are starker under sticky information. Specifically, the government spending multiplier is three times larger, and the tax multiplier is four times larger in the sticky information model relative to the sticky price model. Finally, this paper also illustrates numerically that the paradox of flexibility is starker under sticky-information. This result is harder to intuit from an analytical example, because the response of output to increased flexibility in the sticky information model depends on the persistence of the underlying fundamental rate shock. Overall, the paradoxical results for fiscal policy multiplier at the ZLB could be interpreted as reflecting a weakness of the Calvo model. This paper, however, clarifies that these paradoxes are not a product of the Calvo assumption, but rather are a fundamental feature of models with nominal rigidities, irrespective of its source, be it sticky prices or sticky information.

Suggested Citation

  • Gauti Eggertsson & Vaishali Garga, 2018. "Sticky Prices versus Sticky Information: Does It Matter For Policy Paradoxes?," 2018 Meeting Papers 577, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    • Handle: RePEc:red:sed018:577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://red-files-public.s3.amazonaws.com/meetpapers/2018/paper_577.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kiley, 2016. "Policy Paradoxes in the New-Keynesian Model," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 21, pages 1-15, July.
    2. N. Gregory Mankiw & Ricardo Reis, 2002. "Sticky Information versus Sticky Prices: A Proposal to Replace the New Keynesian Phillips Curve," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(4), pages 1295-1328.
    3. Carlstrom, Charles T. & Fuerst, Timothy S. & Paustian, Matthias, 2015. "Inflation and output in New Keynesian models with a transient interest rate peg," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 230-243.
    4. Bhattarai, Saroj & Eggertsson, Gauti B. & Schoenle, Raphael, 2018. "Is increased price flexibility stabilizing? Redux," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 66-82.
    5. Lawrence Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Sergio Rebelo, 2011. "When Is the Government Spending Multiplier Large?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(1), pages 78-121.
    6. Gauti B. Eggertsson, 2010. "The paradox of toil," Staff Reports 433, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    7. Charles T. Carlstrom & Timothy S. Fuerst & Matthias Paustian, 2014. "Fiscal Multipliers under an Interest Rate Peg of Deterministic versus Stochastic Duration," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(6), pages 1293-1312, September.
    8. Michael Woodford, 2011. "Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-35, January.
    9. Alisdair McKay & Emi Nakamura & Jón Steinsson, 2016. "The Power of Forward Guidance Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(10), pages 3133-3158, October.
    10. Calvo, Guillermo A., 1983. "Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 383-398, September.
    11. Gauti B. Eggertsson, 2011. "What Fiscal Policy Is Effective at Zero Interest Rates?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2010, volume 25, pages 59-112, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Matthew Denes & Gauti B. Eggertsson & Sophia Gilbukh, 2013. "Deficits, Public Debt Dynamics and Tax and Spending Multipliers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 133-163, February.
    13. Gauti B. Eggertsson & Michael Woodford, 2003. "Optimal Monetary Policy in a Liquidity Trap," NBER Working Papers 9968, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Bonciani, Dario & Oh, Joonseok, 2023. "Revisiting the New Keynesian policy paradoxes under QE," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Bing Tong & Guang Yang, 2020. "A Fixed-Interest-Rate New Keynesian Model of China," CFDS Discussion Paper Series 2020/1, Center for Financial Development and Stability at Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China.
    3. Bonciani, Dario & Oh, Joonseok, 2023. "Monetary policy inertia and the paradox of flexibility," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Hahn, Volker & Marenčák, Michal, 2020. "Price points and price dynamics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 127-144.
    5. Laura Castillo-Martinez & Ricardo Reis, 2024. "How do central banks control inflation? A guide for the perplexed," Discussion Papers 2433, Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM).
    6. Vaishali Garga, 2020. "Fiscal Expansions in the Era of Low Real Interest Rates," Working Papers 20-11, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    7. Adam, Felix & Matthes, Jürgen, 2018. "Zur Belastbarkeit von Forderungen nach expansiver Fiskalpolitik an der Nullzinsgrenze: Eine Kritik neukeynesianischer Modelle auf Basis einer Literaturanalyse," IW-Reports 7/2018, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.

    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. Diba, Behzad & Loisel, Olivier, 2021. "Pegging the interest rate on bank reserves: A resolution of New Keynesian puzzles and paradoxes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 230-244.
    2. Michael Kiley, 2016. "Policy Paradoxes in the New-Keynesian Model," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 21, pages 1-15, July.
    3. Bonciani, Dario & Oh, Joonseok, 2023. "Revisiting the New Keynesian policy paradoxes under QE," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Volker Hahn, 2017. "Policy Effects in a Simple Fully Non-Linear New Keynesian Model of the Liquidity Trap," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2017-05, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    5. Bing Tong & Guang Yang, 2020. "A Fixed-Interest-Rate New Keynesian Model of China," CFDS Discussion Paper Series 2020/1, Center for Financial Development and Stability at Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China.
    6. George-Marios Angeletos & Chen Lian, 2018. "Forward Guidance without Common Knowledge," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(9), pages 2477-2512, September.
    7. Cochrane, John H., 2017. "The new-Keynesian liquidity trap," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 47-63.
    8. Gregory E. Givens, 2022. "Unemployment, Partial Insurance, And The Multiplier Effects Of Government Spending," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 571-599, May.
    9. Eggertsson, Gauti B. & Singh, Sanjay R., 2019. "Log-linear approximation versus an exact solution at the ZLB in the New Keynesian model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 21-43.
    10. Abo-Zaid, Salem & Kamara, Ahmed H., 2020. "Credit Constraints and the Government Spending Multiplier," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Timothy S. Hills & Taisuke Nakata, 2018. "Fiscal Multipliers at the Zero Lower Bound: The Role of Policy Inertia," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 50(1), pages 155-172, February.
    12. Yangyang Ji, 2021. "Are Technology Shocks More Expansionary at the ZLB?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 67(3), pages 296-317.
    13. Hafedh Bouakez & Michel Guillard & Jordan Roulleau-Pasdeloup, 2017. "Public Investment, Time to Build, and the Zero Lower Bound," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 23, pages 60-79, January.
    14. Müller, Tobias & Christoffel, Kai & Mazelis, Falk & Montes-Galdón, Carlos, 2022. "Disciplining expectations and the forward guidance puzzle," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Nakata, Taisuke, 2016. "Optimal fiscal and monetary policy with occasionally binding zero bound constraints," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 220-240.
    16. Yangyang Ji, 2019. "Are Supply-side Reforms Contractionary at the Zero Lower Bound?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 65(1), pages 68-83.
    17. Carlstrom, Charles T. & Fuerst, Timothy S. & Paustian, Matthias, 2015. "Inflation and output in New Keynesian models with a transient interest rate peg," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 230-243.
    18. Eric M. Leeper & Nora Traum & Todd B. Walker, 2017. "Clearing Up the Fiscal Multiplier Morass," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2409-2454, August.
    19. William John Tayler & Roy Zilberman, 2017. "Taxation, Credit Spreads and Liquidity Traps," Working Papers 173174116, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    20. Francesco D'Acunto & Daniel Hoang & Maritta Paloviita & Michael Weber, 2019. "Human Frictions to the Transmission of Economic Policy," 2019 Meeting Papers 339, Society for Economic Dynamics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • E31 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - Price Level; Inflation; Deflation
    • E4 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Money and Interest Rates
    • E5 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
    • E50 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit - - - General
    • E51 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit - - - Money Supply; Credit; Money Multipliers
    • E52 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit - - - Monetary Policy
    • E6 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook
    • E62 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Fiscal Policy; Modern Monetary Theory

    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:red:sed018:577. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.