SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Central Bank Review / 2013 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2

İş gücü piyasası sürtünmeleri altında frıedman kuralı üzerine

On the friedman rule with labor market frictions

Francesco ZANETTİ
Pages
59–78
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results show that labor market frictions may break the equality between the marginal rate of substitution and the marginal rate of transformation, thereby inducing households to supply a suboptimal amount of labor.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper uses a cash-in-advance model to study whether the optimality of a nominal interest rate equal to zero holds in the presence of labor market frictions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results show that labor market frictions may break the equality between the marginal rate of substitution and the marginal rate of transformation, thereby inducing households to supply a suboptimal amount of labor.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, the paper shows that an appropriate fiscal policy stance may restore the optimality of a nominal interest rate equal to zero.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper uses a cash-in-advance model to study whether the optimality of a nominal interest rate equal to zero holds in the presence of labor market frictions. Results show that labor market frictions may break the equality between the marginal rate of substitution and the marginal rate of transformation, thereby inducing households to supply a suboptimal amount of labor. A non-zero nominal interest rate may correct the inefficient labor market decisions and improve efficiency. Numerical evaluations of the model quantify the inefficiencies generated by labor market frictions. Finally, the paper shows that an appropriate fiscal policy stance may restore the optimality of a nominal interest rate equal to zero.

Özet

Z Bu çalışmada sürtünmeli bir iş gücü piyasasının varlığı altında optimal nominal faiz oranının sıfıra eşit olup olmadığı bir peşin ödeme modeli çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Sonuçlar, iş gücü piyasası sürtünmelerinin marjinal ikame ve marjinal dönüştürme oranları arasındaki eşitliği bozarak hanehalkını optimalin altında emek arz etmeye ittiğine işaret etmektedir. Sıfırdan farklı bir nominal faiz oranı iş gücü arzı kararlarındaki etkinsizliği düzeltebilmekte ve etkinliği artırabilmektedir. İş gücü piyasası sürtünmelerinin ortaya çıkardığı etkinsizliklerin sayısal değerlendirmelerle ölçüldüğü makalede, uygun maliye politikası duruşu ile nominal faiz oranının optimal değeri olan sıfıra eşitlenebileceği gösterilmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

ZANETTİ, F. (2013). İş gücü piyasası sürtünmeleri altında frıedman kuralı üzerine. Central Bank Review, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2, 59–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/148256

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Abel, A.B., 1987, “Optimal Monetary Growth” Journal of Monetary Economics 19:437-450.
  2. Akyol, A., 2004, “Optimal Monetary Policy in an Economy with Incomplete Markets and Idiosyncratic Risk” Journal o}!Monetary Economics 51:1245-1269.
  3. Bhattacharya, J, J.H. Haslag and A. Martin, 2005, “Heterogeneity, Redistribution, and the Friedman Rule” International Economic Review 46:437-454.
  4. Bhattacharya, J, J.H. Haslag, A. Martin and R. Singh, 2008, “Who is Afraid of the Friedman Rule?” Economic Inquiry 46:113-130.
  5. Bhattacharya, J, J.H. Haslag and S. Russell, 2005, “The Role of Money in Two Alternative Models: When is the Friedman Rule Optimal, and Why?” Journal of Monetary Economics 52:1401-1433.
  6. Blanchard, O.J. and J. Gali, 2010, “Labor Markets and Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Model with Unemployment” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2:1-30.
  7. Cole, H.L. and N. Kocherlakota, 1998, “Zero Nominal Interest Rates: Why They're Good and How to Get Them” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 22:2-10.
  8. Cooley, T.F. and G. D. Hansen, 1989, “The Inflation Tax in a Real Business Cycle Model” American Economic Review 79:733-748.
  9. Cooley, T.F. and V. Quadrini, 2004, “Optimal Monetary Policy in a Phillips-Curve World” Journal ofEconomic Theory 118:174-208.
  10. Craig, B.B. and G. Rocheteau, 2008, “State-Dependent Pricing, Inflation, and Welfare in Search Economies” European Economic Review 52:441-468. da Costa, C.E. and I. Werning, 2008, “On the Optimality of the Friedman Rule with Heterogeneous Agents and Non-Linear Income Taxation” Journal of Political Economy 116:82-112.
  11. Friedman, M., 1969, “The Optimum Quantity of Money” in the Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Gahvari, F., 1988, “Lump-Sum Taxation and the Superneutrality and Optimum Quantity of Money in Life Cycle Growth Models” Kotima/ of Public Economics 36:339-367.
  12. Hall, R.E., 1995, “Lost Jobs” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1:221-256.
  13. Head, A. and A. Kumar, 2005, “Price Dispersion, Inflation, and Welfare” International Economic Review 46:533-572.
  14. Hosios, A., 1990, “On the Efficiency of Matching and Related Models of Search and Unemployment” Review ofEconomic Studies 57:279-298.
  15. Ireland, P.N., 2003, “Implementing the Friedman Rule” Review of Economic Dynamics 6:120-134.
  16. Ireland, P.N., 2005a, “Heterogeneity and Redistribution: By Monetary or Fiscal Means?” International Economic Review 46:455-463.
  17. Ireland, P.N., 2005b, “The Liquidity Trap, the Real Bala