PL EN
RESEARCH PAPER
Are Central Banks’ Research Teams Fragile Because of Groupthink in the Area of Monetary Policy? – Evidence on Inflation Targeting
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
 
 
Submission date: 2020-04-02
 
 
Final revision date: 2020-09-21
 
 
Acceptance date: 2020-10-06
 
 
Publication date: 2020-12-30
 
 
Corresponding author
Jakub Rybacki   

SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
 
 
GNPJE 2020;304(4):81-103
 
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
In the recent years, the a great vast majority of the world’s central banks have globally failed to realize meet their inflation targets. We attempt to answer a question of determine whether such this failure resulted from insufficient inadequate organization organisation of economic research in those institutions. Our study shows a positive, but statistically weak, relationship between these two issues aspects. However, the analysis finds also finds a few several adverse irregularities in how research is organised in major central banks’s. research organizations. The research of the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bundesbank, and the Bank of England are is relatively less diversified compared tothan that of the European Central Bank. In the cases of Poland and Italy, central bank economic departments are dominated by groups of researchers focused on a narrow range of topics. On the other hand, the organization organisation of research departments in France and Canada supports a greater variety of topics and independence of researchers.
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Adolph C. [2013], Bankers, Bureaucrats and Central Bank Politics: The Myth of Neutrality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
2.
Angrist J.D., Pischke J.S. [2010], The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2): 3–30.
 
3.
Apel M., Claussen C.A., Lennartsdotter P. [2010], Picking the brains of MPC members, Riksbank Research Paper Series, (68).
 
4.
Apel M., Claussen C.A., Lennartsdotter P., Røisland Ø. [2015], Monetary Policy Committees: Comparing Theory and “Inside” Information from MPC Members, International Journal of Central Banking, 11(4): 47–89.
 
5.
Beyer K.M., Pühringer S. [2019], Divided we stand? Professional consensus and political conflict in academic economics, ICAE Working Paper Series, 94.
 
6.
De Haan J., Eijffinger S.C. [2016], The politics of central bank independence, DNB Working Paper, 539.
 
7.
Ellis M.A., Liu D. [2016], FOMC forecasts and monetary policy deliberations, Economics Letters, 147: 131–134.
 
8.
Fanelli D. [2010], Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data, PloS one, 5(4), e10271.
 
9.
Haldane A.G. [2018], Central bank psychology, Research Handbook on Central Banking, Edward Elgar Publishing.
 
10.
Horowitz M., Hughes R. [2018], Political identity and economists’ perceptions of capitalist crises, Review of Radical Political Economics, 50(1): 173–193.
 
11.
Fernández-Albertos J. [2015], The politics of central bank independence, Annual Review of Political Science, 18: 217–237.
 
12.
Frey B.S. [2003], Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success, Public Choice, 116 (1–2): 205–223.
 
13.
Goel A.M., Thakor A.V. [2008], Overconfidence, CEO selection, and corporate governance, The Journal of Finance, 63(6): 2737–2784.
 
14.
Janis I.L. [2008], Groupthink, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(1): 36.
 
15.
Ioannidis J., Doucouliagos C. [2013], What’s to know about the credibility of empirical economics?, Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(5): 997–1004.
 
16.
Javdani M., Chang, Ha-Joon [2019], Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists, MPRA working paper, 91958.
 
17.
Maniadis Z., Tufano F., List J.A. [2017], To replicate or not to replicate? Exploring reproducibility in economics through the lens of a model and a pilot study, The Economic Journal, 127, (I): 605.
 
18.
Moser-Boehm P. [2006], The relationship between the central bank and the government, In: Central Banks and the Challenge of Development, A special meeting of governors held at the BIS, Basel: 14–15.
 
19.
Oswald A.J. [2007], An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: Evidence and implications for decision-makers, Economica, 74(293): 21–31.
 
20.
Romer C.D., Romer D.H. [2008], The FOMC versus the staff: Where can monetary policymakers add value?, American Economic Review, 98(2): 230–35.
 
21.
Silvia J.E. [2012], The biases that limit our thinking about the economic outlook and policy, Business Economics, 47(4): 297–301.
 
22.
Sunstein C.R. [1999], The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, 91.
 
23.
Tillmann P. [2011], Strategic forecasting on the FOMC, European Journal of Political Economy, 27(3): 547–553.
 
24.
Van Eck N.J., Waltman L., Dekker R., van den Berg J. [2010], A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12): 2405–2416.
 
25.
Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. [2009], How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8): 1635–1651.
 
26.
Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. [2014], Visualizing bibliometric networks, In: Measuring scholarly impact: 285–320, Springer, Cham.
 
27.
Whyte G. [1989], Groupthink reconsidered, Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 40–56.
 
eISSN:2300-5238
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top