2026-04-13T03:58:19Zhttps://recercat.cat/oai/requestoai:recercat.cat:10230/338832025-12-24T02:05:46Zcom_2072_6col_2072_452953
RECERCAT
author
Debortoli, Davide
author
Kim, Jinill
author
Lindé, Jesper
author
Nunes, Ricardo
2020-05-25T09:26:56Z2020-05-25T09:26:56Z2017-03-042020-05-25T09:25:12Z
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. This paper studies how to design simple loss functions for central banks, as parsimonious approximations to social welfare. We show, both analytically and quantitatively, that simple loss functions should feature a high weight on measures of economic activity, sometimes even larger than the weight on inflation. Two main factors drive our result. First, stabilizing economic activity also stabilizes other welfare relevant variables. Second, the estimated model features mitigated inflation distortions due to a low elasticity of substitution between monopolistic goods and a low interest rate sensitivity of demand. The result holds up in the presence of measurement errors, with large shocks that generate a trade-off between stabilizing inflation and resource utilization, and also when ensuring a low probability of hitting the zero lower bound on interest rates.
L'accés als continguts d'aquest document queda condicionat a l'acceptació de les condicions d'ús establertes per la següent llicència Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
central banks' objectives
simple loss function
monetary policy design
sticky prices and sticky wages
dsge models
Macroeconomics and International Economics
Designing a simple loss function for central banks: Does a dual mandate make sense?
info:eu-repo/semantics/workingPaper