SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

Government and economy: a non-zero sum game

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 11 (no. 3.1),
p. 20-33

An adequate interaction between government and economy is the key problem of modern countries. How can we improve the functioning of the government if this conflict of interests would be systematic and unavoidable by its nature? What would be better: to have more government – and more limitations for business; or less regulation (with more freedom for business) – and less economic stability? Although an admissible solution depends on many factors, including a concrete situation in a country in a certain period, the right answer could be found only if we use the right instrument of analysis. The article provides a series of arguments for the game theory as an optimal method of analyzing interactions between government and economy at this stage of economic development. Examples from the area of monetary policy are given.


Keywords: government; monetary policy; game theory; economic interactions; economic forecasting

References:
  • Kozlovsky P. (1998). Society and state: inevitable duality. Moscow: Resoublika Publ. (In Russian.)
  • Ouen G. (2010). Game theory. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publ. (In Russian.)
  • Rozanova N.M. (2013). Maceoeconomics. Textbook for the magistrates. Moscow: Yurait Publ.(In Russian.)
  • Acemoglu D., Golosov M., Tsyvinski A. (2008a). Markets versus Governments // Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 55, pp. 159–189.
  • Acemoglu D., Golosov M., Tsyvinski A. (2008b). Political Economy of Mechanisms // Econometrica, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 619–641.
  • Acemoglu D., Tsyvinski A., Golosov M. (2008c). Political Economy of Intermediate Goods Taxation // Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 6, no. 2/3, pp. 353–366.
  • Ahmed S. (1986). Temporary and permanent government spending in an open economy // Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 17, pp. 197–224.
  • Andres J., Domenech R., Molinas C. (1996). Macroeconomic performance and convergence in OECD countries // European Economic Review, vol. 40, pp. 1683–1704.
  • Bairam E. (1990). Government size and economic growth: the African experience, 1960-85 // Applied Economics, vol. 22, pp. 1427–1435.
  • Barro R., Gordon D. (1983). A positive theory of monetary policy in a natural rate model // Journal of Political Economy, vol. 91, pp. 589–610.
  • Bartolomeo G., Giuli F. (2011). Fiscal and monetary interaction under monetary policy uncertainty // European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 27, pp. 369–375.
  • Belo F., Gala V., Jun Li. (2013). Government spending, political cycles, and the cross section of stock returns // Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 107, pp. 305–324.
  • Ben Aissa M.S., Rebei N. (2012). Price subsidies and the conduct of monetary policy // Journal of Macroeconomics, vol. 34, pp. 769–787.
  • Berger W., Kissmer F. (2013). Central bank independence and financial stability: a tale of perfectharmony? // European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pp. 109–118.
  • Binmore K. (1994).Game theory and the social contract. L.
  • Bodenstein M., Hebden J., Nunes R. (2012). Imperfect credibility and the zero lower bound // Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 59, pp. 135–149.
  • Bohn F. (2013). Grand corruption instead of commitment? Reconsidering time-inconsistency of monetary policy // Journal of International Money and Finance, vol. 32, pp. 478–490.
  • Carfi D., Musolino F. (2012). Game theory and speculation on government bonds // Economic Modeling, vol. 29, pp. 2417–2426.
  • Cason T., Sheremeta R., Zhang J. (2012). Communication and efficiency in competitive coordination games // Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 76, pp. 26–43.
  • Chen S., Lee C. (2005). Government size and economic growth in Taiwan: a threshold regression approach // Journal of Policy Modeling, vol. 27, pp. 1051–1066.
  • Christie T. (2012). The effect of government spending on economic growth: testing the non-linear hypothesis // Bulletin of Economic Research. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.2021.00438x/.
  • Davies A. (2009). Human development and the optimal size of government // Journal of SocioEconomics, vol. 38, pp. 326–340.
  • De Witte K., Moesen W. (2010). Sizing the government // Public Choice, vol. 145, pp. 39–55.
  • Demirel U.D. (2012). The value of monetary policy commitment under imperfect fiscal credibility // Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 36, pp. 813–829.
  • Facchini F., Melki M. (2013). Efficient government size: France in the 20th century // European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pp. 1–14.
  • Firth M., Gong S., Shan L. (2013). Cost of government and firm value // Journal of Corporate Finance, vol. 21, pp. 136–152.
  • Forte F., Magazzino C. (2011). Optimal size of government and economic growth in EU countries // Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, vol. 28, pp. 295–322.
  • Fudenberg D. (1996). Game theory. NY.
  • Gertler M., Karadi P. (2011). A model of unconventional monetary policy // Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 58, pp. 17–34.
  • Gibbons R. (1992). A Primer in game theory. L.
  • Haan T., Offerman T., Sloof R. (2011). Noisy signaling: theory and experiment // Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 73, pp. 402–428.
  • Hansson P., Henrekson M. (1994). A new framework for testing the effect of government spending on growth and productivity // Public Choice, vol. 81, pp. 381–401.
  • Kara E. (2010). Optimal monetary policy in the generalized Taylor economy // Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, vol. 34, pp. 2023–2037.
  • Karras G. (1996). The optimal government size: further international evidence on the productivity of government services // Economic Inquiry, vol. 34, pp. 193–203.
  • Levine R., Renelt D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions // The American Economic Review, vol. 82, pp. 942–963.
  • Marlow M.L. (1986). Private sector shrinkage and the growth of industrialized economies // Public Choice, vol. 49, pp. 143–154.
  • Mittnik S., Neumann T. (2003). Time-series evidence on the nonlinearity hypothesis for public spending // Economic Inquiry, vol. 41, pp. 565–573.
  • Poilly C. (2010). Does money matter for the identification of monetary policy shocks: a DSGE perspective // Journal of Economic Dynamic & Control, vol. 34, pp. 2159–2178.
  • Reed R., Ghossoub E. (2012). The effects of monetary policy at different stages of economic development // Economic Letters, vol. 117, pp. 138–141.
  • Ruge-Murcia F.J. (2003). Does the Barro-Gordon model explain the behavior of US inflation? A reexamination of the empirical evidence // Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 50, pp. 1375–1390.
  • Sunders P. (1985). Public expenditures and economic performance in OECD countries // Journal of Public Policy, vol. 5, pp. 1–21.
  • Tovar C. (2008). DSGE model and central banks. Bank for International Settlements Working Paper #258. September. Available at: www.bis.org/publ/work258.html/.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606