Can learnability save new-Keynesian models?
McCallum (2009) argues that "learnability" can save new-Keynesian models from indeterminacies. He claims the unique bounded equilibrium is learnable, and the explosive equilibria are not. However, he assumes that agents can directly observe the monetary policy shock. Reversing this assumption, I find the opposite: the bounded equilibrium is not learnable and the unbounded equilibria are learnable. More generally, I argue that a threat by the Fed to move to an "unlearnable" equilibrium for all but one value of inflation is a poor foundation for choosing the bounded equilibrium of a new-Keynesian model.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- John H. Cochrane, 2011.
"Determinacy and Identification with Taylor Rules,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(3), pages 565-615.
- John H. Cochrane, 2007. "Determinacy and Identification with Taylor Rules," NBER Working Papers 13410, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John H. Cochrane, 2007. "Determinacy and Identification with Taylor Rules," NBER Working Papers 13409, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- McCallum, Bennett T., 2009. "Inflation determination with Taylor rules: Is new-Keynesian analysis critically flawed?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1101-1108, November.
- Bennett T. McCallum, 2008. "Inflation Determination with Taylor Rules: Is New Keynesian Analysis Critically Flawed?," NBER Working Papers 14534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:moneco:v:56:y:2009:i:8:p:1109-1113. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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.