The importance of seigniorage relative to other sources of government revenue differs markedly across countries. This paper tries to explain this regularity by studying a political model of tax reform. The model implies that countries with a more unstable and polarized political system will have more inefficient tax structures and, thus, will rely more heavily on seigniorage. This prediction of the model is tested on cross-sectional data for 79 countries. We find that, after controlling for other variables, political instability is positively associated with seigniorage.

Using a Bayesian framework, this paper considers a risk-neutral firm which has to pick an investment project out of many that are available. It is shown that, if the firm is allowed to collect information, it will usually devote some time to information gathering before choosing. The main result is that, when uncertainty increases, the firm finds it profitable to delay investment decisions even further in order to collect more information. Thus increased uncertainty decreases the current level of investment even under risk neutrality. Another implication is that increased uncertainties cause an increase in the demand for liquid assets.

Politicians face a trade-off between the policies that maximize their chances of reelection and their most preferred policies (or the policies most preferred by the constituency which they represent). This paper analyzes this trade-off in a dynamic electoral model in which the voters are not fully informed about the preferences of the incumbent. First, we show that the incumbent follows a policy which is intermediate between the other party's ideal policy and his own ideal policy. Second, we show that, often, the incumbent has an incentive to choose procedures which make it difficult for voters to pinpoint his preferences with absolute precision. Thus, politicians may prefer to be “ambiguous.”

This paper develops a positive theory of credibility, ambiguity, and inflation under discretion and asymmetric information. The monetary policymaker maximizes his own (politically motivated) objective function that is positively related to economic stimulation through monetary surprises and negatively related to monetary growth. The relative importance he assigns to each target shifts stochastically through time. His current preference trade-off is known to him but not to the public. When choosing the (state contingent) path of money growth for the present and the future, the policymaker compares the benefits from current stimulation with the costs associated with higher future inflation expectations. Current monetary growth conveys information to the public about future money growth because there is persistence in the policymaker's objectives. Although expectations are rational, information is imperfect because monetary control procedures are imprecise. As a result the public cannot correctly distinguish persistent changes of emphasis on different policy objectives from transitory monetary control errors. The public becomes aware of changes gradually by.observing past monetary growth. Credibility is defined in terms of the speed with which the public recognizes changes in the objectives of the policymaker. Credibility is lower the noisier monetary control and the more stable the objectives of the policymaker. Looser monetary control and a higher degree of time preference on the part of the policymaker induce him to produce higher and more variable monetary growth. When the policymaker is free to determine the accuracy of monetary control he does not always choose the most effective control available in spite of the fact that monetary surprises always have an expected value of zero. The reason is that ambiguous control procedures enable the policymaker to generate positive surprises when he cares more than on average about economic stimulation. He leaves the inevitable negative surprises for periods in which he cares more about inflation prevention. This result provides an explanation for the Fed's preference for ambiguity, recently documented by Goodfriend (1986). The policymaker is more likely to pick more ambiguous control procedures the more uncertain his objectives and the higher his time preference. The paper also provides a theoretical underpinning for the well documented crosscountry positive correlation between the level and the variability of inflation.

Using a generalization of a rational, partial information framework presented fully in Cukierman and Wachtel (1979), it is shown that there is a positive relationship between the variance of relative price change and the variance of inflationary expectations across markets in the economy. This implication is then tested empirically using data on the variance of relative price change and on the variance of directly measured expectations. The empirical evidence supports the view that there is a positive relationship between the two variances and that more than one-third of this relationship is explainable in terms of the model presented.

This paper develops a micro-founded general equilibrium model of the financial system composed of ultimate borrowers, ultimate lenders and financial intermediaries. The model is used to investigate the impact of uncertainty about the likelihood of governmental bailouts on leverage, interest rates, the volume of defaults and the real economy. The distinction between risk and uncertainty is implemented by applying the multiple priors framework to beliefs about the probability of bailout. Results of the analysis include: (i) An unanticipated increase in bailout uncertainty raises interest rates, the volume of defaults in both the real and financial sectors and may lead to a total drying up of credit markets. (ii) Lower exante bailout uncertainty is conducive to higher leverage, which in turn raises moral hazard and makes the economy more vulnerable to expost increases in bailout uncertainty. (iii) Bailout uncertainty affects the likelihood of bubbles, the amplitude of booms and busts as well as the banking and the credit spreads. (iv) Higher bailout uncertainty is associated with higher returns’ variability in diversified portfolios and higher systemic risks, (v) Pre-crisis expansionary monetary policy reinforces those effects by inducing higher aggregate leverage levels. (vi) The larger the change in bailout uncertainty and the change in aversion to this uncertainty, the stronger the pre-crisis buildup and the deeper the ensuing crisis. A central policy implication of the analysis is that the vaguest is bailout policy prior to a crisis, the lower is the magnitude of investments destroyed or missed due to errors in evaluating bailout and other intervention policies. On the other hand, the clearer is bailout policy upon the eruption of a crisis, the smaller the contraction of credit and the destruction of investment activity.

I wish to dedicate the paper to Mark Perlman, who guided this Journal until now. Perlman's help and encouragement in preparing this paper were characteristically vigorous and scholarly. I wish to express appreciation to the Hoover Institution where an early draft was written and to E. S. Shaw for his comments on that draft. Alex Cukierman, Brian Kantor, Scott Richard, and E. Roy Weintraub made several helpful suggestions, and Karl Brunner suffered through many discussions about Keynes and Keynesians. Many people read and commented on the previous draft, and their suggestions and criticisms have helped me to see points I would have missed. I am grateful especially to Paul Davidson and Donald Moggridge. Davidson commented generously and helpfully on almost every page. Moggridge helped me to strengthen my argument and graciously made available sections of volume 27 of Keynes's Collected Writings that had not been published at the time.