| Authors |
|
| Publication date |
2003
|
| Journal |
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking
|
| Volume | Issue number |
35 | 1
|
| Pages (from-to) |
129-136
|
| Number of pages |
8
|
| Organisations |
-
Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB) - Amsterdam School of Economics Research Institute (ASE-RI)
|
| Abstract |
We demonstrate that in important cases Propositions 3 and 4 in Eijffinger, Hoeberichts, and Schaling (Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, May 2000) may fail. Moreover, their monetary policy delegation arrangement, which advocates that central banker preference uncertainty may be desirable, is dominated by other arrangements without any such uncertainty. Finally, their way of modelling preference uncertainty leads to arbitrary effects on average monetary policy. Without these, preference uncertainty is never desirable
|
| Document type |
Comment/Letter to the editor
|
| Note |
Comment to: S.C.W. Eijffinger, M. Hoeberichts, E. Schaling. (2000) Why Money Talks and Wealth Whispers: Monetary Uncertainty and Mystique In: Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 32, 218–235.
|
| Language |
English
|
| Published at |
https://doi.org/10.1353/mcb.2003.0001
|
|
Permalink to this page
|