FRBの金融政策におけるタカ派ハト派の位置づけを概観した記事がリッチモンド連銀の季刊誌「Econ Focus」に掲載されている(H/T Mostly Economics)。記事のタイトルは「Birds of a Feather / Does the hawk-dove distinction still matter in the modern Fed?」で、著者はTim Sablik。

In the past, Fed officials disagreed about the proper focus and targets for monetary policy. But has that debate changed today? In 2012, the Fed adopted an explicit long-run inflation goal of 2 percent, suggesting a consensus on the goal of price stability. In the wake of that decision, then-president of the Cleveland Fed Sandra Pianalto commented that the bird labels had become obsolete. "We now have agreement" on inflation, she said. "So I don't think the titles of hawks and doves are useful."
Have Fed officials all become birds of a feather now? Dissents at Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings in recent years would suggest otherwise. Indeed, while "hawks versus doves" is a simplification of the disagreements at the Fed, the terms do serve to highlight important differences in policymakers' economic forecasts and their confidence in the Fed's ability to influence the future path of the economy with monetary policy.
かつては、金融政策の適切な重点と目標についてFRB当局者の間で意見が割れていた。だが、そうした議論は今日では変貌を遂げたのだろうか? 2012年に、FRBは2%の明示的な長期インフレ目標を採用し、物価安定目標についての合意を示した。その決定の後、当時クリーブランド連銀総裁だったサンドラ・ピアナルトは、鳥のラベルは時代遅れになった、とコメントした。インフレについて「今や我々は意見が一致している」と彼女は述べた。「従ってタカ派ハト派の肩書が役に立つとは思わない。」
FRB当局者は皆同じ種類の鳥になったのだろうか? 近年の連邦公開市場委員会FOMC)の会議での意見の不一致は、そうではないことを示している。実際、「タカ派ハト派」という用語はFRBにおける意見の不一致を単純化したものであるにせよ、経済予測、および経済の将来の経路に金融政策で影響を与えるFRBの能力に対する自信についての政策当局者同士の重要な相違を際立たせる役割を確かに果たしている。


After the experience of the 1970s, as well as advancements in theory suggesting that expectations are an important determinant of inflation, economists now generally agree that there is no long-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. But there is still disagreement on how much the Fed can do to bring unemployment down in the short run. "It’s a debate that has continued over time and still exists today," says David Wheelock, vice president and deputy director of research at the St. Louis Fed.

Stanford University economist John Taylor reframed this debate in 1993 when he proposed a mathematical formulation for how central bankers set nominal interest rates. Under this "Taylor rule," monetary policymakers respond to gaps in both inflation and employment targets. Policymakers assign weights to each of these responses, and while Taylor proposed that the weights be equal, it is clear that not everyone at the Fed agrees.
"Hawks argue that monetary policy can affect the unemployment rate but not as reliably as we would like," says Wheelock. "So the best that you can expect from monetary policy is price stability."
This suggests that hawks assign a larger weight to monetary policy responses to inflationary gaps, but it doesn’t mean that they assign no weight to employment gaps. Instead, hawks argue that the Fed can best achieve maximum employment by focusing on price stability. William Poole, who served as president of the St. Louis Fed from 1998 to 2008 and was labeled a hawk, captured this idea in the title of a 1999 speech: "Inflation Hawk = Employment Dove."
"I put inflation as the Fed's primary objective, but by no means did I put employment as a nonobjective," says Poole. "The reason is that once you lose on the inflation front, then you lose the possibility of success on the growth objective. I think the 1970s demonstrated that."
These views have been echoed by other hawks, such as Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser. In an Oct. 16 speech, Plosser noted that economists do not know how to "confidently determine whether the labor market is fully healed or when we have reached full employment." Waiting to raise interest rates until it is clear the labor market has fully recovered risks falling behind on inflation, he said.
Doves, on the other hand, tend to be more willing to risk temporarily falling behind on inflation. "If you're uncertain about the natural rate of unemployment but you have a very high weight on policy responses to unemployment, that means you're more willing to test the waters," says Frederic Mishkin, a professor of economics at Columbia University Business School who served on the Board of Governors from 2006 to 2008 and was often labeled a dove. "If you overshoot a little bit and a little inflation occurs but you lowered unemployment, then doves see that as a good thing.”

But hawk and dove are used to describe more than just policymaker preferences and risk tolerances. They are also used to describe how FOMC members vote on changes to the federal funds rate, the Fed's primary policy tool. Committee members who favor higher rates or raising rates sooner are labeled hawks, and vice versa for doves. In this context, the boundaries etween hawks and doves are much more nebulous, as such decisions depend heavily on ever-changing forecasts of economic growth.


Nevertheless, the idea of a split between two camps is likely to persist if for no other reason than the Fed's primary policy tool — the fed funds rate — moves in only two directions. And for the most part, monetary policymakers don’t have the option of not taking a stand.

"When you get to an FOMC meeting, you have to make a decision given the best information you have," says Poole. "You need to be ready to change your mind, but you can't just say 'I'm going to wait until we do more studies.' That may work for an academic, but it won't work for a policymaker."