Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to find alternative strategies to change negative output gaps in China.
Design/methodology/approach
– A path Philips curves approach is proposed to investigate output gaps, which develops hybrid Philips curves with the control variables of money, house prices and interest rates.
Findings
– An alternative strategy to stop the decline in output gaps rate is to perform interest rate, house price, and money growth rate about 3, 1 and 15 percent, respectively. The results also indicate that only one of monetary increase, changes in interest rates, and house price adjustments are difficult to change the negative output gap.
Practical implications
– Alternative strategies cannot only change the negative output gap, but also succeed in pushing the inflation rate down to 3 percent.
Originality/value
– This study provides a new path Philips curves to simulate how the macroscopic control variables influence output and inflation. It provides a useful insight for stopping the decline in output gaps.
Subject
Management Science and Operations Research,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference20 articles.
1. Apergis, N.
(2003), “The inflation–output volatility trade-off: a case where anti-inflation monetary policy turns out to be successful, a historical assessment”, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 25 No. 14, pp. 881-892.
2. Basistha, A.
and
Nelson, C.R.
(2007), “New measures of the output gap based on the forward-looking New Keynesian Phillips curve”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 498-511.
3. Collins, S.
and
Siklos, P.
(2004), “Optimal monetary policy rules and inflation targets: are Australia, Canada, and New Zealand different from the US?”, Open Economies Review, Vol. 15 No. 15, pp. 347-362.
4. Duan, Z.D.
(2007), “The relationship between housing price and inflation, output”, Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, Vol. 12 No. 20, pp. 127-139.
5. Dupasquier, C.
and
St-Amant, A.G.P.
(1999), “A survey of alternative methodologies for estimating potential output and the output gap”, Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 577-595.