
doi: 10.1111/sjoe.12134
handle: 11245/1.409024 , 11245/1.315242 , 11245/1.432537 , 1814/12521 , 1814/12694
doi: 10.1111/sjoe.12134
handle: 11245/1.409024 , 11245/1.315242 , 11245/1.432537 , 1814/12521 , 1814/12694
AbstractUncertainty about the appropriate choice among nested models is a concern for optimal policy when policy prescriptions from those models differ. The standard procedure is to specify a prior over the parameter space, ignoring the special status of submodels (e.g., those resulting from zero restrictions). Following Sims (, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32, 2460–2475), we treat nested submodels as probability models, and we formalize a procedure that ensures that submodels are not discarded too easily and do matter for optimal policy. For the United States, we find that optimal policy based on our procedure leads to substantial welfare gains compared to the standard procedure.
C51, 330, Bayesian model estimation, Optimal monetary policy, model uncertainty, E52, E32
C51, 330, Bayesian model estimation, Optimal monetary policy, model uncertainty, E52, E32
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
