Mr. Romain A Duval, Davide Furceri, Raphael Lee, and Marina M. Tavares
We show that firms’ market power dampens the response of their output to monetary policy shocks, using firm-level data for the United States and a large cross-country firm-level dataset for 14 advanced economies. The estimated impact of a firm’s markup on its response to a monetary policy shock is large enough to materially affect monetary policy transmission. We also find some evidence that the role of markup in monetary policy transmission, while independent from other channels, is greater for firms whose characteristics — notably size and age — are likely to be associated with greater financial constraints. We rationalize these findings through a simple partial equilibrium model in which borrowing constraints amplify disproportionately low-markup firms’ responses to changes in interest rates.
This paper sets out Management’s response to the Independent Evaluation Office’s (IEO) evaluation report on Self-Evaluation at the IMF.
The implementation plan proposes specific actions to address the recommendations of the IEO that were endorsed by the Board in its September 18, 2015 discussion of the IEO’s report, namely: (i) adopt a broad policy or general principles for self-evaluation in the IMF, including its goals, scope, outputs, utilization, and follow-up; (ii) give country authorities the opportunity to express their views on program design and results, and IMF performance; (iii) for each policy and thematic review, explicitly set out a plan for how the policies and operations it covers will be self-evaluated; (iv) develop products and activities aimed at distilling and disseminating evaluative findings and lessons.
The implementation of some of these proposed actions is already underway. The paper also explains how implementation will be monitored.
Studies of the impact of trade openness on growth are based either on cross-country analysis-which lacks transparency-or case studies-which lack statistical rigor. We apply transparent econometric methods drawn from the treatment evaluation literature to make the comparison between treated (i.e., open) and control (i.e., closed) countries explicit while remaining within a unified statistical framework. First, matching estimators highlight the rather far-fetched country comparisons underlying common cross-country results. When appropriately restricting the sample, we confirm a positive and significant effect of openness on growth. Second, we apply synthetic control methods-which account for endogeneity due to unobservable heterogeneity-to countries that liberalized their trade regime and we show that trade liberalization has often had a positive effect on growth.