IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v91y1981i363p647-70.html

The Superiority of Contingent Rules over Fixed Rules in Models with Rational Expectations

Author

Listed:
  • Buiter, Willem H

Abstract

The paper investigates the robustness of the proposition that in stochastic models contingent or feddback rules dominate fiped or openloop rules. Four arguments in favour of fixed rules are considere`. 1) The presence of an incompetent op malevolent policy maker. 2) A trade-off between flexibility and simplicity or credibility. 3) The New Classical proposition that only unanticipated (stabilization) policy has real effects. 4) The "time-inconsistency" of optimal plans in non-causal models, that is models in which the current state of the economy depends on expectations of future states. The main conclusion is that the "rational expectations revolution", represented by arguments (3) and (4) does not affect the potential superiority of (time-inconsistent) closed-loop policies over (time-inconsistent) open-loop policies. The case against conditionality in the design of policy must therefore rest on argument (1) or (2) which predate the New Classical Macroeconomics.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Buiter, Willem H, 1981. "The Superiority of Contingent Rules over Fixed Rules in Models with Rational Expectations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(363), pages 647-670, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:91:y:1981:i:363:p:647-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133%28198109%2991%3A363%3C647%3ATSOCRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&origin=bc
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:ecj:econjl:v:91:y:1981:i:363:p:647-70. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.