Altissimo, F., and V. Corradi. 2002. “Bounds for Inference with Nuisance Parameters Present Only Under the Alternative.” Econometrics Journal 5: 494–519.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. W. K. 1993. “Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point.” Econometrica 61: 821–856.Google Scholar
Benati, L., and P. Surico. 2009. “VAR Analysis and the Great Moderation.” American Economic Review 99: 1636–1652.Google Scholar
Bianchi, F. 2012. “Regime Switches, Agents’ Beliefs, and Post-WORLD War II US Macroeconomic Dynamics.” Duke University Working Papers 12–14.Google Scholar
Boivin, J., M. T. Kiley, and F. S. Mishkin. 2011. “How has the Monetary Transmission Mechanism Evolved Over Time?” In Handbook of Monetary Economics, edited by B. Friedman and M. Woodford, 3A, 369–422. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Canova, F. 2007. Methods for Applied Macroeconomic Research. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cecchetti, S. G., P. Hooper, B. C. Kasman, K. L. Schoenholtz, and M. W. Watson. 2007. “Understanding the Evolving Inflation Process.” Monetary Policy Forum Report n. 1 2007.Google Scholar
Cogley, T., and T. J. Sargent. 2005. “Drifts and Volatilities: Monetary Policies and Outcomes in the Post WWII US.” Review of Economic Dynamics 8: 262–302.Google Scholar
Cukierman, A., and A. Muscatelli. 2008. “Nonlinear Taylor Rules And Asymmetric Preferences In Central Banking: Evidence from the United Kingdom and the United States. B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics (Contributions), 8: article 7.Google Scholar
Davig, T., and T. Doh. 2009. “Monetary Policy Regime Shifts and Inflation Persistence. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Research Working Paper 8–16.Google Scholar
Davig, T., and E. Leeper. 2008. “Endogenous Monetary Policy Regime Change.” In NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2006, edited by L. Reichlin and K. West, 345–391. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Demertzis, M., M. Marcellino, and N. Viegi. 2012. “A Measure for Credibility: Tracking the US ‘Great Moderation’.” B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics (Topics) 12(1).Google Scholar
Fernandez-Villaverde, J., P. Guerron-Quintana, and J. Rubio-Ramirez. 2010. “Fortune or Virtue: Time-Variant Volatilities Versus Parameter Drifting in US Data.” NBER Working Paper, No. 15928.Google Scholar
Galvão, A. B. 2006. “Structural Break Threshold Vars for Predicting US Recessions using the Spread.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 21: 463–487.Google Scholar
Gonzalo, J., and J. I. Pitarakis. 2002. “Estimation and Model Selection Based Inference in Single and Multiple Threshold Models.” Journal of Econometrics 110: 319–352.Google Scholar
Goodfriend, M., and R. King. 2005. “The Incredible Volcker Disinflation.” Journal of Monetary Economics 52: 981–1015.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, B. E. 1996. “Inference when a Nuisance Parameter is not Identified under the Null Hypothesis.” Econometrica 64: 413–430.Google Scholar
Hansen, B. E. 2000. “Sample Splitting and Threshold Estimation.” Econometrica 68: 573–603.Google Scholar
Ireland, P. 2007. “Changes in the Federal Reserve’s Inflation Target: Causes and Consequences.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 39: 1851–1882.Google Scholar
Kapetanios, G. 2000. “Small Sample Properties of the Conditional Least Squares Estimator In Setar Models.” Economics Letters 69: 267–276.Google Scholar
Kilian, L. 1998. “Small Sample Confidence Intervals for Impulse Response Functions.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 218–230.Google Scholar
Laxton, D., and P. N. Diaye. 2002. “Monetary Policy Credibility and the Unemployment-Inflation Nexus: Some Evidence from Seventeen Oecd Countries.” IMF Working Paper.Google Scholar
Levin, A., and J. B. Taylor. 2010. “Falling Behind the Curve: A Positive Analysis of Stop-Start Monetary Policy and the Great Inflation.” NBER working paper, n. 15630.Google Scholar
Lo, M. C., and J. Piger. 2005. “Is the Response of Output to Monetary Policy Asymmetric? Evidence from a Regime-Switching Coefficients Model.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 37: 865–886.Google Scholar
Orphanides, A. 2011. “Monetary Policy Rules Based on Real-Time Data. American Economic Review 92: 115–120.Google Scholar
Primiceri, G. 2005. “Time Varying Structural Vector Autoregressions and Monetary Policy.” The Review of Economic Studies 72: 821–852.Google Scholar
Ravn, M. O., and M. Sola. 2004. “Asymmetric Effects of Monetary Policy in the United States.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 86: 41–60.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. B. 1993. “Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Practice.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39: 195–214.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. B. 2007. “Housing and Monetary Policy.” Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City 463–476.Google Scholar
Tong, H. 1990. Non-linear Time Series: A Dynamical System Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsay, R. S. 1998. “Testing and Modeling Multivariate Threshold Models.” Journal of American Statistical Association 93: 1188–1202.Google Scholar
Van Norden, S. 1995. “Why is it so Hard to Measure the Current Output Gap?” Macroeconomics, EconWPA, 9506001.Google Scholar
Weise, C. L. 1999. “The Asymmetric Effects of Monetary Policy: A Nonlinear Vector Autoregression Approach.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 31: 85–108.Google Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2013-10-30
Published in Print: 2014-05-01
Our model includes an equation for the policy rate with own lags, output and prices on the right-hand side, similar to a reduced-form Taylor rule, and their parameters may change with the monetary policy stance, which is related with economic conditions.
The one-step-at-time approach estimates first one threshold, then conditional on this value, a second threshold is estimated. Then using the second estimated threshold, a new threshold is estimated. And finally, this procedure is repeated one more time conditional on the new threshold computed in the previous step to deliver the estimates of both thresholds.
Note, however, that Taylor (1993) suggested the rule using output deviations from a linear trend, instead of annual growth as in equation (8). Because a constant growth rate may not be adequate to detrend output over a long sample, as we do, and the problems arising from using filtering methods in real time [as explained by Orphanides (2001)], we consider the use of annual growth as a good proxy for a measure of current economic activity, see also Van Norden (1995).
Specifically, we require at least 30% of observations in each regime. In the case of an SB-ET-VAR model, this restriction applies separately for each subsample. Other papers in the literature normally set the proportion equal to 10 or 15%. However, because of the relative short sample size and the impact that parameter estimates have on impulse responses, we prefer to consider at least 30% of observations in each regime.
Results available on request.
Results are not shown to save space, but are available on request.
We only present results for positive shocks. Preliminary results with the chosen model indicate no significant asymmetries in the dynamic responses from the sign of the shocks even when comparing increases with decreases of 100 basis points.