IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank: a theoretical comparison of their legislative mandates

  • GIUSEPPE FONTANA

In academic and policy circles, the assumption is often made that the Fed and the European Central Bank (ECB) have a perfectly identical understanding of what monetary policy can achieve and they follow the same policy strategy. This assumption seats uncomfortably with the different legislative mandates of the Fed and the ECB. Drawing on a critical analysis of the "new con-sensus" view in macroeconomics and its policy recommendations, this paper argues that the dual mandate of the Fed allows for a less restrictive set of theoretical assumptions than the single mandate of the ECB, and, for this reason, has to be preferred.

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.

File URL: http://mesharpe.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=2V8NUWALK15NJ857
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Article provided by M.E. Sharpe, Inc. in its journal Journal of Post Keynesian Economics.

Volume (Year): 28 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Pages: 433-450

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:28:y:2006:i:3:p:433-450
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://mesharpe.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&id=109348

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:28:y:2006:i:3:p:433-450. 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: (Chris Nguyen)

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Chris Nguyen to update the entry or send us the correct address

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.