Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • br Introduction Contributions i ii iii and iv are

    2018-10-25


    Introduction Contributions (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are novel not only in the Brazilian literature dedicated to economic studies, but also in the international literature devoted to emerging economies. The Brazilian literature lacks studies analyzing the over at this website of concrete measures of disagreement in expectations; furthermore, it lacks studies characterizing its hypothetical dependence to the forecasting horizon or the specific variable being forecasted. Likewise, there are no studies relating time series of disagreement measures to the observed paths of relevant macroeconomic variables. Finally, there is no research about the potential link between disagreement in expectations and Central Bank credibility. Thus, results (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) fill some important gaps in the literature applied to Brazil, in particular, and emerging economies, in general. Evidences (iii) and (iv) are also novel at the international level, since there are no studies relating the credibility of monetary authorities in countries adopting the inflation targeting regime with disagreement in expectations concerning the future values of macroeconomic variables. The analysis of the term structures of disagreement in expectations is also an important contribution, for the most important paper dealing with this issue (Andrade et al., 2014) does not link the common trends followed by the time series that comprise these curves (namely, their level) with their driving factors. The economic literature regarding disagreement in expectations (especially on the fields of macroeconomics and finance) has emphasized the fact that agents may disagree about the future behavior of the economy. Although articles discussing expectations’ dispersion are numerous, we can classify them into four groups. The first group comprises papers trying to characterize disagreement by means of time series, aiming at explaining its course in light of the observed behavior of potentially relevant macroeconomic variables (for example, the output gap and the volatility of shocks affecting the economy), measures of the degree of independence of monetary authorities and their transparency standards. The second group includes articles studying the sources of disagreement in agents’ expectations, which can stem from a priori heterogeneous beliefs, differences in the models used by agents to assess the economic environment, differences in the information set that each agent uses to infer the current state of the economy, diversity of interpretations about new information revealed to the public, diversity of views about the nature of changes occurring in the economic system (temporary vs. permanent changes) and so on. The third group discusses the consequences of expectations’ dispersion, while the fourth comprises articles that try to verify if specific disagreement measures are good proxies for the inherent uncertainty of macroeconomic projections. Regarding the Brazilian economy, the fact that expectations are not the same for everyone has not received much attention. There are articles (such as Bugarin and Carvalho, 2006; Guillén, 2008; Carvalho and Minella, 2009; Carvalho, 2012; de Paula and Nakane, 2013) that study the rationality of the process by which inflation expectations are formed in Brazil and other Latin American economies (Chile and Mexico); the transmission mechanism determining the way expectations spread in the Brazilian financial market (i.e. checking if this mechanism complies to the framework over at this website proposed by Carroll, 2003); that compare sticky information and imperfect information models aiming at verifying which one better describes the expectations formation process in Brazil; and that provide a comparison between central tendency measures of inflation expectations distributions (more specifically, means, medians, modes and core inflation measures) and the observed values of the inflation rate. The paper which comes closer to ours is Garcia and Guillén (2014), who study inflation expectations distributions with the purpose of calculating a credibility index for the CBB and then comparing it with other indices proposed in the Brazilian literature (Sicsú, 2002; Nahon and Meurer, 2005; de Mendonça, 2004; de Mendonça and Souza, 2007, 2009).