Crises are volatile times when endogenous sources of information are closely monitored. We study the role of information in crises by introducing a financial market in a coordination game with imperfect information. The asset price aggregates dispersed private information acting as a public noisy signal. In contrast to the case with exogenous information, our main result is that uniqueness may not obtain as a perturbation from perfect information: multiplicity is ensured with small noise. In addition, we show that: (a) multiplicity may emerge in the financial price itself; (b) less noise may contribute toward nonfundamental volatility even when the equilibrium is unique; and (c) similar results obtain for a model where individuals observe one another?s actions, highlighting the importance of endogenous information more generally.

Different beliefs about the fairness of social competition and what determines income inequality influence the redistributive policy chosen in a society. But the composition of income in equilibrium depends on tax policies. We show how the interaction between social beliefs and welfare policies may lead to multiple equilibria or multiple steady states. If a society believes that individual effort determines income, and that all have a right to enjoy the fruits of their effort, it will choose low redistribution and low taxes. In equilibrium, effort will be high and the role of luck will be limited, in which case market outcomes will be relatively fair and social beliefs will be self-fulfilled. If, instead, a society believes that luck, birth, connections, and/or corruption determine wealth, it will levy high taxes, thus distorting allocations and making these beliefs self-sustained as well. These insights may help explain the cross-country variation in perceptions about income inequality and choices of redistributive policies.

Should policy communications aim at anchoring expectations of the policy instrument (“keep interest rates at zero until date τ”) or of the targeted outcome (“do whatever it takes to bring unemployment down to y%”)? We study how the optimal approach depends on a departure from rational expectations. People have limited depth of knowledge and rationality, or form otherwise distorted beliefs about the behavior of others and the general equilibrium (GE) effects of policy. The bite of this distortion on implementability and welfare is minimized by target-based guidance if and only if GE feedback is strong enough. This offers a rationale for why central banks should shine the spotlight on unemployment when faced with a prolonged liquidity trap, a steep Keynesian cross, or a large financial accelerator.

We study the efficiency of inattentive but otherwise frictionless economies by augmenting the Arrow-Debreu framework with a flexible form of rational inattention. If attention costs satisfy an invariance condition embedded in Sims’s mutual information specification, a version of the first welfare theorem holds no matter the degree of inattention. More generally, however, a cognitive externality may emerge, and welfare may be improved by regulating and simplifying markets. We discuss how these results qualify Hayek’s argument about the informational optimality of the price system, how they link the normative question of interest to a decision-theoretic literature on stochastic choice, and how they separate paternalistic and nonpaternalistic approaches to modeling inattention.

We study optimal policy in a business-cycle setting in which firms hold dispersed private information about, or are rationally inattentive to, the state of the economy. The informational friction is the source of both nominal and real rigidity. Because of the latter, the optimal monetary policy does not target price stability. Instead, it targets a negative relation between the nominal price level and real economic activity. Such leaning against the wind helps maximize production efficiency. An additional contribution is the adaptation of the primal approach of the Ramsey literature to a flexible form of informational friction.

We develop a tractable method for augmenting macroeconomic models with autonomous variation in higher‐order beliefs. We use this to accommodate a certain type of waves of optimism and pessimism that can be interpreted as the product of frictional coordination and, unlike the one featured in the news literature, regards the short‐term economic outlook rather than the medium‐ to long‐run prospects. We show that this enrichment provides a parsimonious explanation of salient features of the data; it accounts for a significant fraction of the business‐cycle volatility in estimated models that allow for various competing structural shocks; and it captures a type of fluctuations that have a Keynesian flavor but do not rely on nominal rigidities.

We study the optimal trade-off between commitment and flexibility in a consump- tion-savings model. Individuals expect to receive relevant information regarding tastes and thus they value the flexibility provided by larger choice sets. On the other hand, they also expect to suffer from temptation, with or without self-control, and thus they value the commitment afforded by smaller choice sets. The optimal commitment problem we study is to find the best subset of the individual's budget set. This problem leads to a principal-agent formulation. We find that imposing a minimum level of savings is always a feature of the solution. Necessary and sufficient conditions are derived for minimum-savings policies to completely characterize the solution. We also discuss other applications, such as the design of fiscal constitutions, the problem faced by a paternalist, and externalities. Copyright The Econometric Society 2006.

This paper responds to the comment of Di Tella and Dubra (2013). We first clarify that the model of Alesina and Angeletos (2005) admits two distinct types of multiplicity: one that is at the core of their contribution, and a separate one that is at work in Di Tella and Dubra's example. We then proceed to show how Alesina and Angeletos's results are robust to alternative specifications of the voting mechanism.

We study optimal policy in an economy where interest rates are low because public debt serves as collateral or buffer stock. Issuing more public debt raises welfare by easing the underlying friction but also reduces the private valuation of this service, raising interest rates. This trade-off shapes the optimal quantity of public debt in the long run, justifies a departure from tax smoothing in the short run, and calls for larger deficits during financial crises. Our analysis illustrates the possible robustness of these insights to different microfoundations and helps clarify when exactly low interest rates represent an opportunity for cheap government borrowing.