A New Framework for Hegemonic Analysis of Monetary Policy: The Case of Iran

Authors

1 Department of economics University of Isfahan

2 Department of Economics, University of Isfahan Isfahan-Iran

Abstract

Monetary policy rule might be helpful to avoid the problem of time inconsistency provided there is a commitment to the rule. The commitment is the ability of a government to bind future policies. However, it doesn’t include intrinsic motivations. Therefore, hegemony, which includes both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, better solves the problem of  time inconsistency. In this paper, we explain the nature of hegemony and discuss why hegemony is preferred to commitment. We have used an index of hegemony to evaluate monetary policy and estimate the hegemony of Supervisory Packages on Monetary Policy (SPMP) of Islamic Republic of Iran for the period 2008-2011 by using fuzzy logic. The results show that an optimal hegemonic policy is better than the optimal commitment policy if and only if adjusted total effect of intrinsic motivation on an agreed-upon social objective function is positive. The results show that the hegemony index of central bank which consists of a combination of three sub-indexes such as "regional equity", "commitment ordering" and "diversity of economic activities" is relatively low and needs to be increased to ensure economic stability.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

یک چارچوب جدید برای تحلیل هژمونیک سیاست پولی: مورد مطالعه ایران

Authors [Persian]

  • ایمان باستانی فر 1
  • محمد واعظ برزانی 2
1 بخش اقتصاد دانشگاه اصفهان
2 دانشیار گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان
Abstract [Persian]

قاعده سیاست پولی از بروز مساله‌ی ناسازگاری زمانی جلوگیری می‌کند. اما قاعده باید تعهد‌آور باشد. تعهد، توانایی یک دولت در الزام آوربودن سیاست در آینده است. اما در تعهد، به انگیزه‌های درونی توجه نمی‌شود. بنابراین، هژمونی که دربردارنده‌ی انگیزه‌های درونی و بیرونی است، به عنوان راه کاری بهتر از تعهد در حل مساله ناسازگاری زمانی پیشنهاد می‌شود. در این مقاله، ماهیت هژمونی بیان و در خصوص بهتر بودن هژمونی از تعهد  استدلال می‌شود. همچنین یک شاخص کمی جهت برآورد هژمونی بسته‌های سیاستی نظارتی بانک مرکزی جمهوری اسلامی ایران طی سال‌های 1388تا 1391، بر اساس منطق فازی ارایه می‌گردد. نتایج گویای آن است که یک سیاست بهینه هژمون بهتر از یک سیاست تعهدآور بهینه است اگر و تنها اگر اثر تعدیل شده‌ی تغییر در انگیزه‌های درون‌زا نسبت به تغییرات رفاهی مثبت گردد. همچنین، نتایج نشان می‌دهد که به منظور هرگونه سیاست ثبات اقتصادی، شاخص هژمونی بانک مرکزی جمهوری اسلامی ایران که ترکیبی از سه شاخص عدالت منطقه‌ای، قوانین دستوری و تنوع فعالیت‌های اقتصادی است باید افزایش یابد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • هژمونی
  • سیاست پولی تعهدآور
  • منطق فازی
  • ایران
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Akerlof, A. G. (2007). The missing motivation in macroeconomics. American Economic Association, 97, 5- 36.

Alesina, A., & R. Perotti. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1203-1228.

Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and growth in a panel of countries.  Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1),5-32.

Bertola, G. (2000). Macroeconomics of income distribution and growth.InA. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.). Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Beyer, C. (2008). Violent globalism conflict in Response to empire. Ashgate publishing limited.

Boswell, T. & Sweat, M. (1991). Hegemony, long waves, and major wars: A time series analysis of systemic dynamics, 1496-1967. International Studies Quarterly, 35, 123-149.

Casario, M., & Dadkhah, K. M. (1998).An evaluation of progress toward European monetary union using fuzzy analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(6), 741-765.

Chang, R. (1998). Political party negotiations, income distribution, and endogenous growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 41, 227-255.

Dennis, R. (2003). Optimal policy rules in rational-expectations models: New solution algorithms. Manuscript, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Revised version of FRBSF Working Paper, 2001-09.

Durlauf, S. N. (1994). Spillovers, stratification, and inequality. European Economic Review, 43: 335 -356.

Fehr, E., & Klaus, S. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3): 817-868.

Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Frey, B. S. (2002a). How does pay influence motivation? In B. S. Frey and M. Osterloh(Eds.) Successful management by motivation: Balancing intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. Berlin: Springer, Verlag.

Frey, B. S., & Margit, O. (2002b). Successful management by motivation: Balancing intrinsic and extrinsic incentives.Berlin: Springer, Verlag.

Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Glimcher, P. W., & Aldo, R. (2004). Neuroeconomics: The consilience of brain and decision. Science, 306 (5695): 447-52.

Goldstein, J. S. (2005). International relations. New York: Pearson-Longman.

Golosov, M., & Tsyvinski, A. (2006). Optimal fiscal and monetary policy without commitment. Forthcoming in New Palgrave, Dictionary of Economics.

Hertel, G., Sven, N., & Stefanie, H. (2003). Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux Kernel.  Research Policy, 32(7), 1159-1177.

Kahneman, D., Jack, K., & Richard, T. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit-seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741.

Knight, S. C. (2013). Handbook of key global financial markets, institutions, and infrastructure. :شهر؟ Elsevier Inc.chap3,31-38.

Kreps, M. D. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives. American Economic Review,87(4), 746- 755.

Kydland, F., & Prescott, E. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of an optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy, 85(3), 473-491.

Kukal, J., & Quang, T. V. (2014).A monetary policy rule based on fuzzy control in an inflation targeting framework. Prague Economic Papers, 3, 290-314.

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45, 1-28.

Lakhani, K. R., & Robert, G. W. (2003). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation effort in free/open source software projects. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper, 4425-03.

Lupu, D. V., & Rotundu, I. L. (2012). The monetary policy from the perspective of the economic power center’s restructuring. 8th International Strategic Management Conference. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 416-422.

McCormick, T. J. (1990). World systems. Journal of American History, 77(3), 886-911.

Mersch, Y. (2006). Monetary policy and time inconsistency in an uncertain Environment. Central Bank Articles and Speeches. Bank of International Settlements.

Milner, H. (1998). International political economy: Beyond hegemonic stability. Foreign Policy, 11o, 759-86.

Modelski, G. (1987). Long cycles in world politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Montes, G. C., & Nicolay, R. T. F. (2012).  Central bank communication and inflation expectations in Brazil. Fluminense Federal University, Department of Economics. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Rua Tiradentes, 17.

Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 84, 600-621.

Quah, D. (2001). How income inequality and economic growth matter, mimeo. Razin, A., E. Sadka, and P. Swagel. (1998). Tax burden and migration: a political economy theory and evidence, NBER working paper, 6734.

Organski, A. (1980). The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reinholt, M. (2006). No more polarization, please! Towards a more nuanced perspective on motivation in organizations. Working Paper, 9.

Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. A., & Aronson, L. E. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755- 1758.

Schneider, G. S., & Wiesehomeier, N. (2010). Diversity, conflict and growth: Theory and evidence. Diversity, 2(9), 1097-1117.

Sheppard, B., Roy, L., & John, M. (1992). Organization justice: The research for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.

Siegel, P. B., Johnson, T. G., & Alwang, J. (1995). Regional economic diversity and diversification. Growth and Change, 26(2), 261-284.

Tabellini, G. (2005). Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott's contribution to the theory of macroeconomic policy. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107(2), 203–216.

Tsoukalas, L. H., & Uhrig, R. E. (1993). Fuzzy and N neural approaches in engineering. New York: John Wiley & Son.

Vaez barzani, M., & Bastanifar, I. (2010) .Designing SPMP of the central bank of Islamic Republic of Iran, 21Th annual conference of Islamic banking.

Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-systems analysis. In World system history. (Ed.) George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Oxford: Eolss Publishers.

Widman, A. (2009). Neuroeconomics and the ultimatum game: A glimpse into the rationale of fairness and its role in the brain. Stanford Journal of Neuroscience, 2 (1), 2-6.