Model Uncertainty, Robust Policies, And The Value Of Commitment
Using results from the literature on H-control, this paper incorporates model uncertainty into Whiteman's (1986) frequency domain approach to stabilization policy. The derived policies guarantee a minimum performance level even in the worst of (a bounded set of) circumstances. ; For a given level of model uncertainty, robust H- policies are shown to be more 'activist' than Whiteman's H- policies in the sense that their impulse responses are larger. Robust policies also tend to be more autocorrelated. Consequently, the premium associated with being able to commit is greater under model uncertainty. Without commitment, the policymaker isn't able to (credibly) smooth his response to the degree that he would like. ; From a technical standpoint, a contribution of this paper is its analysis of robust control in a model featuring a forward-looking state transition equation, which arises from the fact that the private sector bases its decisions on expectations of future government policy. Existing applications of H- control in economics follow the engineering literature, and only consider backward-looking state transition equations. It is the forward-looking nature of the state transition equation that makes a frequency domain approach attractive.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Volume (Year): 6 (2002)
Issue (Month): 01 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_MDY
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.:
- Bennett T. McCallum, 1995.
"Two Fallacies Concerning Central Bank Independence,"
NBER Working Papers
5075, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- McCallum, Bennett T, 1995. "Two Fallacies Concerning Central-Bank Independence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 207-11, May.
- Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J., 1980.
"Formulating and estimating dynamic linear rational expectations models,"
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control,
Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 7-46, May.
- Lars Peter Hansen & Thomas J. Sargent, 1979. "Formulating and estimating dynamic linear rational expectations models," Working Papers 127, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Kenneth Kasa, 1994.
"Optimal policy with limited commitment,"
Working Papers in Applied Economic Theory
94-16, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
- Oliner, Stephen D. & Rudebusch, Glenn D. & Sichel, Daniel, 1996. "The Lucas critique revisited assessing the stability of empirical Euler equations for investment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 291-316, January.
- Stokey, Nancy L., 1991. "Credible public policy," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 627-656, October.
- V. V. Chari & Patrick J Kehoe, 1998.
Levine's Working Paper Archive
600, David K. Levine.
- Roberds, William, 1987.
"Models of Policy under Stochastic Replanning,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(3), pages 731-55, October.
- Chari, V V & Kehoe, Patrick J, 1993.
"Sustainable Plans and Mutual Default,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 175-95, January.
- Taylor, John B, 1975. "Monetary Policy during a Transition to Rational Expectations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(5), pages 1009-21, October.
- Christopher A. Sims, 1982. "Policy Analysis with Econometric Models," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 13(1), pages 107-164.
- Mark Salmon & Massimiliano Marcellino, 2001.
"Robust Decision Theory and the Lucas Critique,"
wp01-10, Warwick Business School, Finance Group.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:macdyn:v:6:y:2002:i:01:p:145-166_02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.