Many Targets, Many Instruments: Where Do We Stand?
Thank you to the International Monetary Fund for allowing me to take part in what I expect will be a very lively discussion. 1  Only five or six years ago, there wouldn ’ t have been a panel on the “ many instruments ” and “ many targets ” of monetary policy. Before the financial crisis, the focus was on one policy instrument: the short-term policy interest rate. Although central banks did not uniformly rely on a single policy target, many adopted an “ inflation targeting ” framework that, as the name implies, gives a certain preeminence to that one objective. Of course, the Federal Reserve has long been a bit of an outlier in this regard, with its explicit dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment. Still, the discussion might not have gone much beyond “ one instrument and two targets ” if not for the financial crisis and its aftermath, which have presented central banks with great challenges and transformed how we look at this topic. Let me start with a few general observations to get the ball rolling. In terms of the targets, or, more generally, the objectives of policy, I see continuity in the abiding importance of a framework of flexible inflation targeting. By one authoritative account, about twenty-seven countries now operate full-fledged inflation-targeting regimes. 2 The United States is not on this list, but the Federal Reserve has embraced most of the key features of flexible inflation targeting: a commitment to promote low and stable inflation over a longer-term horizon, a predictable monetary policy, and clear and transparent communication. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) struggled for years to formulate an inflation goal that would not seem to give preference to price stability over maximum employment. In January 2012, the committee adopted a “ Statement on Many Targets, Many Instruments: Where Do We Stand?
As armadilhas do tripé da política macroeconômica brasileira
The traps of the tripad of the Brazilian macroeconomic policy. This paper analyses the so-called tripod of the Brazilian macroeconomic policy, which since 1999 has been combining an inflation target regime, a floating exchange rate regime and targets for primary fiscal surplus. I argue that, unless its modus operandi is changed, the tripod will not be able to free the Brazilian economy from another "possible trinity": high real interest rates, real exchange rate appreciation and very low economic growth. After briefly analysing the theoretical base under the macroeconomic tripod, I will show why this macroeconomic policy regime, if it is evaluated in a medium or long-term perspective, has not been able to assure neither price stability nor economic growth. In addition to the suggestion of breaking with the Brazilian strategy of growing with foreign savings, the paper also suggests three main ways of changing the modus operandi of the Brazilian tripod: i) increase the time horizon for reaching the inflation target, as has been the experience of most countries that adopt this monetary policy regime; ii) restore the countercyclical role of the Brazilian fiscal policy; and iii) adopt a mix of instruments aiming at preventing the Brazilian currency from entering into a new cyclical trend of appreciation in real terms.
A survey of aquaculture production economics and management
Abstract The literature on production economics and management of fish culture has grown as aquaculture has matured as a commercial industry. Salmon, catfish, shrimp and trout are the focus of this literature survey as a reflection of the volume of research that has been completed on these species and their importance in US production and world trade. In addition, a discussion of low resource production systems is included that is dominated by tilapia and carp culture systems. A brief overview of the principles of aquaculture production economics and management is presented followed by a review of economic studies.