The paper examines how the implicit coordination mechanisms between the policymakers could help in overcoming negative macroeconomic consequences which are provoked by the problem of zero lower bound (ZLB) on the nominal interest rates. For the long period of time, before the global recession started, the ZLB problem was not found to be interesting for researchers. Immediately after the crisis outbreak, more attention was put on that problem within different approaches since conventional monetary policy faced substantial limitation in overcoming business cycles. Many authors have proposed new unconventional measures in both monetary policy and fiscal policy sphere. The theoretical approaches to the ZLB problem include many different aspects. In the paper we chose to use regime switching models adjusted to simulate occasionally binding constraints in order to investigate different scenarios within the New Keynesian framework. We found that coordination between more passive monetary policymaker and more active fiscal policymaker is crucial in the ZLB environment. Central bank has to follow monetary policy rule in which both inflation stabilization and output stabilization have certain positive weight. However, credible policy-making which is supported by the relevant institutions is a necessary precondition for implicit coordination, which substantially decrease the losses occurred as a consequence of ZLB on interest rates.
1. Acocella, N., Di Bartolomeo, G. & Hallet, H.A. (2016). Macroeconomic Paradigms and Economic Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Auerbach, A. J. & Gorodnichenko, Y. (2011). Fiscal Multipliers in Recession and Expansion Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper 17447.
3. Auerbach, A. J. & Gorodnichenko, Y. (2012). Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal Policy. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(2), 1–27.
4. Barro, R.J. (1974). Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1095–1117.
5. Barro, R.J. & Gordon, D.B. (1983). Rules, Discretion, and Reputation in a Model of Monetary Policy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 12, 101-121.
6. Bastidon, C., Gilles, P. & Huchet, N. (2016). The ECB, Between Conservatism and Pragmatism. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 1, 25-52. doi: 10.1515/jcbtp-2016-0002
7. Blanchard, O., & Galí, J. (2007). Real Wage Rigidities and the New Keynesian Model. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 39(1), Supplement, 36–65.
8. Blanchard, O., Dell’Ariccia, G. & Mauro, P. (2010). Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy, Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund. IMF Staff Position Note SPN/10/03.
9. Christiano, L., Eichenbaum, M. & Rebelo, S. (2011). When is the Government Spending Multiplier Large? Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 78-121.
10. Chung, H., Laforte, J.P., Reifschneider, D. & Williams, J.C. (2012). Have We Underestimated the Likelihood and Severity of Zero Lower Bound Events? Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, 44(2), 47-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4616.2011.00478.x
11. Coenen, G., Erceg, C. J., Freedman, C., Furceri, D., Kumhof, M., Lalonde, R., Laxton, D., Lindé, J., Mourougane, A., Muir, D., Mursula, S., de Resende, C., Roberts, J., Roeger, W., Snudden, S., Trabandt, M. & in’t Veld, J. (2012). Effects of Fiscal Stimulus in Structural Models. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4(1), 22-68.
12. Cogan, J. F., Cwik, T., Taylor, J. B. & Wieland, V. (2010). New Keynesian Versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34, 281–295.
13. Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y. & Wieland, J. (2012). The Optimal Inflation Rate in New Keynesian Models: Should Central Banks Raise Their Inflation Targets in Light of the Zero Lower Bound? Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, 79(4), 1371-1406. doi: 10.1093/restud/rds013
14. Cwik, T. & Wieland, V. (2010). Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers and Spillovers in the Euro Area. Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank. ECB Working Paper 1267.
15. Dordal-i-Carreras, M., Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y. & Wieland, J. (2016). Infrequent but Long-Lived Zero-Bound Episodes and the Optimal Rate of Inflation. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Papers Series 22510).
16. Eggertsson, G. & Woodford, M. (2003). The Zero Bound on Interest Rates and Optimal Monetary Policy. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 139–233.
17. Evans, C., Fisher, J., Gourio, F. & Krane, S. (2016). Risk Management for Monetary Policy Near the Zero Lower Bound. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 141-219.
18. Fabris, N. (2018). Challenges for Modern Monetary Policy. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 2, 5-24. doi: 10.2478/jcbtp-2018-0010
19. Fernandez-Villaverde, J., Gordon, G., Guerron-Quintana, P. & Rubio-Ramirez, J. (2012). Nonlinear Adventures at the Zero Lower Bound. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper Series 18058.
20. Galí, J. (2001). Targeting Inflation in an Economy with Staggered Price Setting. Santiago: Central Bank of Chile. Central Bank of Chile Working Paper 123.
21. Galí, J. (2015). Monetary Policy, Inflation and Business Cycle: An Introduction to the New Keynesian Framework and Its Application. Second Edition, Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
22. Goodfriend, M. & King, R.G. (1997). The New Neoclassical Synthesis and the Role of Monetary Policy. In B.S. Bernanke and J.J. Rotemberg, (Eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual (231-83). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
23. Gravelle, J. G., Hungerford, T. L. & Labonte, M. (2009). Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies, CRS Report for Congress, 7-5700, R40104.
24. Guerrieri, L. & Iacoviello, M. (2015a). OccBin: A Toolkit for Solving Dynamic Models with Occasionally Binding Constraints Easily. Journal of Monetary Economics, 70, 22-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2014.08.005
25. Guerrieri, L. & Iacoviello, M. (2015b). Appendix for Online Publication: OccBin: A Toolkit for Solving Dynamic Models with Occasionally Binding Constraints Easily. Journal of Monetary Economics, 70, 11-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2014.08.005
26. Gunter, G., Orphanides, A. & Wieland, V. (2004). Price Stability and Monetary Policy Effectiveness When Nominal Interest Rates are Bounded at Zero. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 4(1), 1-25.
27. Hansen, A. (1939). Economic Progress and Declining Population Growth, The American Economic Review, 29, 1–15.
28. Issing, O. (2011). Lessons for Monetary Policy: What Should the Consensus Be? Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund. IMF Working Paper WP/11/97.
29. Jakl, J. (2017). Impact of Quantitative Easing on Purchased Asset Yields, its Persistency and Overlap. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 2, 77-99. doi: 10.1515/jcbtp-2017-0014
30. Jaksic, M. & Jesic, M. (2016). Budget Constraint Fulfilment in Some EU Candidate Countries. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12 (2), 101-115.
31. Keynes, J. M. (1936 ). Opća teorija zaposlenosti, kamate i novca, Zagreb: Cekade.
32. Krstevska, A. (2015), Monetary Policy Objectives During the Crisis: An Overview of Selected Southeast European Countries. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 1, 35-46. doi: 10.1515/jcbtp-2015-0003
33. Krugman, P. (1998). It’s Baaack: Japan’s Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 29(2), 137-206.
34. Krugman, P. (2014). Four observations on secular stagnation. In C. Teulings and R. Baldwin (Eds.), Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes, and Cures (61-68). London: CEPR Press.
35. Kyriazis, N.A. (2017). Eurozone Debt Monetization and Helicopter Money Drops: How Viable can this be? Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 3, 5-15. doi: 10.1515/jcbtp-2017-0018
49. Williamson, S. (2016). Scarce Collateral, the Term Premium, and Quantitative Easing. Journal of Economic Theory, 164(C), 136-165. doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2015.07.010
50. Williamson, S. (2017). Low Real Interest Rates and the Zero Lower Bound (Working Paper 2017-010A), St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.20955/wp.2017.010
51. Woodford, M. (2010). Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier. Prepared for the session “Fiscal Stabilization Policy” at the meetings of the Allied Social Science Associations, Atlanta, Georgia, January 3-5, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/G_ASSA.pdf