Former MPC member Posen: Forward guidance no substitute for policy

This is not the hope you're looking for.

In a piece written for the CEPR pamphlet "Is Inflation Targeting Dead? Central Banking After the Crisis", former Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member Adam Posen has dismissed the idea of forward guidance for monetary policy as a "gimmick".

Forward guidance is the idea that a monetary policy committee can pre-commit to a certain course of policy in order to drive outcomes in the direction they want. It's a particularly trendy idea right now, driven, Posen writes, "by the question about whether central banks should be explicitly focusing on GDP (or unemployment) as well as inflation".

If forward guidance works as it should, then a bank can boost the economy by assuaging fears amongst investors that monetary policy will be tightened shortly. Armed with that guidance, they will (ideally) go off and take actions which strengthen the economy, which they may not have taken if they were expecting an imminent rise in interest rates.

But Posen points out that that rarely happens. He cites three examples, in Canada, Sweden and the US, where forward guidance has been issued, but later statements from the central bank have served to instil doubt in the markets. For instance, in the US:

The Federal Reserve recently embraced a version of pre-commitments when the FOMC announced in November 2012 that they were switching to a ‘thresholds model’. Namely, they would not raise rates until unemployment fell unless the inflation threshold was violated.
I think that was the right stance of policy. Then we saw the next month, based on some comments in the minutes from the FOMC meeting, the market sold off.

His evidence is backed up by the fact that in the UK – where pre-commitment is explicitly foresworn – "the impact of quantitative easing was very closely comparable… to that of the US". As a result, Posen, writes, "the bottom line lesson… is that talk is cheap."

Of course, it may still be the case that in some hypothetical situation where the central bank managed to release a series of statements which were all consistent with the forward guidance in the eyes of the market that the policy would have the desired effect. But, he argues, "believing that jawboning had some effect is not the same as believing that it is an independent tool of monetary policy with a lasting and credible effect."

The intervention may come as a disappointment to incoming Bank of England governor Mark Carney. Posen explicitly calls out Carney for placing too much faith in forward guidance, and attributes it to "frustration – the lack of recovery despite massive monetary-policy shifts." It's certainly true that many of Carney's supporters are hoping that this will be the policy shift which actually works, but Posen provides a hope of his own:

The fact is we could have pursued more aggressive monetary policy, achieved better goals and been totally consistent with the current inflation target…

Forward guidance is no substitute for sufficient policy action.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution