We compare two stylized frameworks for the implementation of monetary policy. The first framework relies only on standing facilities, and the second one relies only on open market operations. We show that the Friedman rule cannot be implemented in the first framework, but can be implemented using the second framework. However, for a given rate of inflation, we show that the first framework unambiguously achieves higher welfare than the second one. We conclude that an optimal system of monetary policy implementation should contain elements of both frameworks. Our results also suggest that any such system should pay interest on both required and excess reserves.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of New York in its series Staff Reports with number
313.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Edward J. Green & Ruilin Zhou, 2005.
"Money As A Mechanism In A Bewley Economy,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(2), pages 351-371, 05.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Shouyong Shi, 2005.
"Nominal Bonds And Interest Rates,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(2), pages 579-612, 05.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Wallace, Neil, 2001.
"Whither Monetary Economics?,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 42(4), pages 847-69, November.