The Nash equilibrium in the policy mix model for Czechia, Hungary, and Romania

Stawska, Joanna; Malaczewski, Maciej; Malaczewska, Paulina; Stawasz-Grabowska, Ewa Article The Nash equilibrium in the policy mix model for Czechia, Hungary, and Romania Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Stawska, Joanna; Malaczewski, Maciej; Malaczewska, Paulina; StawaszGrabowska, Ewa (2021) : The Nash equilibrium in the policy mix model for Czechia, Hungary, and Romania, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/270033 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaef20 The Nash equilibrium in the policy mix model for Czechia, Hungary, and Romania Joanna Stawska, Maciej Malaczewski, Paulina Malaczewska & Ewa StawaszGrabowska | To cite this article: Joanna Stawska, Maciej Malaczewski, Paulina Malaczewska & Ewa StawaszGrabowska | (2021) The Nash equilibrium in the policy mix model for Czechia, Hungary, and Romania, Cogent Economics & Finance, 9:1, 1869380, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 04 Jan 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1916 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles FINANCIAL ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE The Nash equilibrium in the policy mix model for Czechia, Hungary, and Romania Joanna Stawska 1 *, Maciej Malaczewski 2 , Paulina Malaczewska 2 and Ewa Stawasz-Grabowska 3 Abstract: The aim of the paper is to compare the sensitivity of a government’s fiscal policy and a central bank’s monetary policy, which are in Nash equilibrium in the case of a noncooperative game between the government and the central bank in Czechia, Hungary, and Romania. The analysis for each country is conducted from the date of its accession to the European Union. The research period for Czechia and Hungary includes the quarters 2004Q2-2019Q2, and for Romania, 2007Q1-2019Q2. The study has demonstrated that in Romania the government’s response to interest rate changes is the strongest and the central bank’s response to changes in the budget deficit turned out to be the weakest. On the other hand, the strongest response of the central bank to changes in the budget deficit turned out to be in Hungary, which means that the central bank in Hungary makes a significant correction of interest rates as a result of changes in the budget deficit. Subjects: Economics; Political Economy; Finance Keywords: monetary policy; fiscal policy; game theory; Nash equilibrium; non-cooperative game; policy mix JEL Codes: C70; C72; E52; E62 Joanna Stawska ABOUT THE AUTHORS Joanna Stawska, PhD. in economics, assistant professor, Department of Central Banking and Financial Intermediation, Institute of Finance, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, the University of Lodz in Poland. The areas of my research experience: finance of enterprises, public finances, fiscal policy, monetary policy, policy mix, central banking, banking supervision, financial crisis, credit risk. Ewa Stawasz – Grabowska, Ph.D. in finance, assistant professor (University of Lodz); Master in International Economics (University of Lodz). Her research interests concentrate mainly on monetary and financial policy in the euro area. Maciej Malaczewski, Ph. D. with habilitation in mathematical economics, professor of the University of Lodz (UL). His research focuses on natural resource economics, growth theory and mathematical modelling in social sciences. Paulina Malaczewska, Ph.D. in mathematical economics, assistant professor, University of Lodz (UL). Her research concentrates on applications of game theory, behavioral economics and informal sector modelling. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT The aim of the article is to compare the reactions of government decisions to the actions of central banks in three selected European Union countries, i.e. the Czech Republic, Romania, and Hungary. This study is based on quarterly data and covers year 2004Q2-2019Q2 for the Czech Republic and Hungary, while for Romania it covers year 2007Q1-2019Q2, according to the dates of their accession to the European Union. The results of the research indicate that the government in Romania reacts most strongly to the central bank’s decisions on interest rates in selected countries. On the other hand, central bank in Romania reacts weakest to changes in the budget deficit, compared to the three analyzed countries, and the strongest reaction of the central bank to changes in the budget deficit was in Hungary. The results of these studies are important for economic decision-makers as they provide insightful information on the relationship between independent players—banks and governments—of European Union countries outside the euro area. Received: 20 July 2020 Accepted: 22 December 2020 *Corresponding author: Joanna Stawska, Department of Finance, Uniwersytet Łódzki (University of Lodz), Lodz 90-214, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Salvatore Ercolano, Universita Degli Studi Del Sannio, Italy Additional information is available at the end of the article Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 1 of 14 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. 1. Introduction Game theory is a mathematical formulation of situations where for two or more players, the result of one of them depends not only on the specific action taken by that player but on the action taken by the co-player (or others) (Carmichael, 2005). Game theory has gained great attention in recent years, as evidenced by a growing number of theoretical and empirical studies using this approach (Gibbons (1992), Borm and Peters (2002), Vega-Redondo (2003), and Binmore (2007)). After the book by Von Neuman and Morgenstern (1944), which was the first important text in game theory, John Nash (1950, 1953) made an important contribution to this theory. Interactions between monetary and fiscal policy can be analyzed using game theory. Interactions between the government’s fiscal policy and the monetary policy of the central bank affect the country’s economy. The combination of these policies is known in the economic literature as a “policy mix.” Coordinating these two policies is important for the economy because decisions made by one authority may have a negative impact on the other authority’s results, causing a deterioration in the welfare of society. Coordinating fiscal and monetary policy should contribute to resolving conflicts of interest, as each decision-maker primarily deals with its goals (Saulo et al., 2013). Frankel and Rockett (1986) indicated that, overall, it would be better for countries to run a cooperative game than a non-cooperative one, in which each government sets its own policy regardless of the policy taken by the other side. There are many voices in the literature that state that the gains from coordination are small, but they are generally positive. In economic reality, however, the game between the government and the central bank more often takes the form of a non-cooperative game. Non-cooperative models of the monetary and fiscal (policy mix) game are frequently employed to study the interactions between both authorities. The models assume that the authorities make their decisions taking account of each other’s choices. It is also important to remember when seeking equilibrium in non-cooperative models that in the Nash equilibrium, the parties try to come up with the best response to the opponent’s decision. We suggest using a non-cooperative game to explore the issue of coordinating fiscal and monetary policies in the EU Member States. The study is conducted for a set of countries from Central and Eastern Europe (henceforth CEE) which have rarely been included in studies of a similar nature. More specifically, we include Czechia, Hungary, and Romania. All of them joined the ranks of the European Union (EU) at the beginning of the 21st century, pursue an independent monetary policy within the framework of inflation targeting, and are obliged to adopt the euro in the future. The Nash Equilibrium in the non-cooperative game model with institutional restrictions has not yet been thoroughly analyzed. In addition, the analysis of sensitivity conducted in this article is a study based on the original equilibrium model for the non-cooperative game of monetary and fiscal authorities in selected countries. The aim of the paper is to compare the mutual sensitivity of the government’s fiscal policy and the central bank’s monetary policy which are in Nash equilibrium in the case of a non-cooperative game between the government and the central bank in Czechia, Hungary, and Romania. The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 1 is the introduction. Section 2 presents the findings of a review of studies on the coordination of fiscal and monetary policies using game theory, especially in the non-cooperative game. In Section 3, our Nash equilibrium of a noncooperative game between the central bank and the government is introduced. The section also explains the model’s assumptions and different variants of the Nash equilibrium. Section 4 presents the estimation of the parameters in the Nash equilibrium equations and then the calculations of the parameters from the central bank and government reaction functions. The last section presents the conclusions. 2. Literature review Studies on the interactions between monetary and fiscal policy have been conducted by Clarida et al. (2000), Buti (2003), Canzoneri et al. (2006), Flanagan et al. (2011), Badarau and Levieuge Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 2 of 14 (2011), Saulo et al. (2013), and Cui (2016), among others, all of whom considered the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy to be beneficial. At the same time, Libich and Nguyen (2015) show that such coordination might be problematic. In particular, it pertains to countries whose central bank pursues an inflation targeting strategy. Coordination of monetary and fiscal policy actions may be perceived by market participants as a breach of central bank independence, which is inextricably related to the inflation targeting framework. To analyze the interaction of the monetary and fiscal policies, Dixit (2001) built several models of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the European Central Bank (ECB) for a group of 12 EMU countries. Dixit (2001) noted, however, the dangerous role that independent fiscal policies could have played, which could often have undermined the ECB’s commitment to the inflation target. Most studies on the interaction between monetary and fiscal policy are carried out for the euro area countries. This is a specific scope of research, and according to Afonso et al. (2019), the introduction of a single currency by 19 out of the 28 EU Member States had a structural impact on the responses and interactions between monetary policy and fiscal policy. In this context, it is worth undertaking a policy mix interaction study in EU countries outside the euro area. An autonomous monetary policy is pursued in these countries, which may contribute to different fiscal policy responses to central bank decisions and vice versa. Lambertini and Rovelli (2003) also studied the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy using game theory. Each player’s preference can be represented by an objective function optimized for the selected restrictions. To determine the optimal behavior of each player, a so-called reaction function is constructed that shows the likely response of one player to a specific decision made by a co-player. The reaction functions make it possible to identify the level of equilibrium where each player’s decision is the best answer to the co-player’s choice; this is called the Nash equilibrium (Bennett & Loayza, 2000; Cechetti, 2000; Gibbons, 1997; Nash, 1950; Kishan & Opiela, 2000). Some authors indicated that the monetary and fiscal game is very much a part of the policy process. Thus, the theory of policy, as developed by Tinbergen (1952), visualized a unitary policymaker optimizing policy in the face of economic constraints and uncertainties. The possibility of conflicts between decision-makers was formally analyzed in early studies by Pindyck (1976), which were devoted to the general problem of conflicting goals among decision-makers. The most thorough analysis was that of Ribe (1980), which concentrated on the impact of coordination or lack of coordination on the efficiency of macroeconomic policy. Blinder (1982) analyzed coordination issues when decision-makers have two or three discrete options and suggested that the game takes the form of a prisoner dilemma. The studies of these authors are pioneering studies on fiscalmonetary policy interactions with the use of game theory approach. Favero (2004) shows that strategic complementarity or substitutability between fiscal and monetary policy depends on the type of shock hitting the economy. In addition, countercyclical fiscal policy can reduce prosperity if the fiscal and monetary policies are inert and uncoordinated. Afonso et al. (2019) found a substitutable relationship between fiscal and monetary policy, in which the central bank takes an active role, mainly in terms of higher levels of debt. This is how the traditional Taylor equation model was extended by Kirsanova et al. (2005) to include fiscal policy and policy coordination analysis. The idea was to describe the role of fiscal policy, which could give feedback on debt and help the monetary authority stabilize inflation. Interactions between monetary policy and fiscal policy are most often considered in three variants: (i) a policy of noncooperation, (ii) a policy partly based on cooperation, and (iii) benevolent policies. The results suggest that if the authorities are benevolent and cooperate, then the monetary authority bears the full burden of stabilization. In addition, the Nash equilibrium will cause great social losses when the monetary authority is benevolent and the fiscal authority discounts too much of the future or strives for excessive production. It is worth emphasizing that when making policy decisions, economic authorities do not have full Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 3 of 14 knowledge of past, current, and future economic data, so it is important to take into account uncertainty in the area of fiscal and monetary policy. Uncertainty about monetary and fiscal instruments such as inflation, exchange rate, real interest rate, spending, etc., plays a significant role in stabilization policy (see Lane, 2003). In addition, monetary authorities usually have a longer time horizon, but they also tend to be cautious and sometimes even sluggish. Therefore, when the economy is locked into high-deficit equilibrium, the strategy of deficit reduction in the face of slow monetary reactions may risk a short-term, but a politically lethal economic slowdown. Interested politicians may, therefore, consider the status quo with a high deficit as the lesser evil. This syndrome is called a monetary and fiscal game to reflect the fact that the monetary and fiscal policies in many large countries are essentially independent and have conflicting goals. Steps to reduce the fiscal deficit must have an impact on how they will unfold in the light of the monetary and fiscal game. Where the game is basically non-cooperative, the fiscal authorities must guess to what extent the short-term contraction impulse to reduce the deficit will be balanced by financial markets, exchange rates, domestic and foreign monetary policy, or a growing wave of private spending (Nordhaus et al., 1994). In the EU countries outside the euro area, monetary and fiscal policy are conducted by independent, separate institutions. The monetary authority is independent and aimed at achieving specific goals, in particular, price stability. The game between the central bank and the government can be seen as a two-player game with a non-zero sum. Each player decides its policy, taking into account the policy of the other party. Nordhaus et al. (1994) presented the results of the Nash equilibrium—a non-cooperative game of the central bank and government. Non-cooperative game is a technical term for a game in which the players generally do not agree on their own policies and do not agree on a common strategy. The results are as follows: each response function has a negative slope; the slope of the monetary response function is steeper than the fiscal response function; optimal policies (or bliss points) are those where the monetary authority has a higher optimal fiscal surplus (but not necessarily a higher level of real interest rates) than the fiscal authority. The reaction functions illustrate how the monetary authority reacts to the fiscal authority’s decisions and vice versa. The results indicate that decisionmakers actually respond to the state of the economy (inflation, unemployment, increase in potential output) and adapt to the policy of the second decision-maker. Thus, Nordhaus et al. (1994) note that the central bank does not raise interest rates in response to changes in fiscal policy, but rather it reacts to changes in the state of the economy. The Nash equilibrium was at a point where the deficit is higher than the desired deficits on both sides, due to a conflict of goals between the players. The government tries to reduce unemployment by increasing the deficit, while the monetary authority raises interest rates to combat inflation and so on. In the Nash equilibrium, in a non-cooperative game, the interest rate is also higher than either side would want. Foresti (2018) produced similar results, which indicates that the incompatibility of monetary and fiscal policy objectives does not allow symbiosis. There is a non-cooperative race between economic authorities; fiscal authorities are trying to achieve output that exceeds the ideal of the central bank, and the central bank seeks to achieve an inflation rate below the ideal of the government. This causes an equilibrium with too-low inflation and too-high output. The result of this equilibrium is excessive debt and too-high interest rates. Changes in the decisions of monetary and fiscal authorities in response to specific reactions of the central bank and the government are also described by Woroniecka – Leciejewicz (2015). Thus, the central bank reacts to the increase in fiscal expansion by tightening monetary policy to avoid exceeding a certain rate of inflation. In turn, in the case of expansive fiscal policy, there is usually a dominant or almost dominant monetary policy. In turn, in the case of extremely expansive monetary policy—the optimal fiscal response ceases to change, and a tendency to dominate the fiscal strategy can be observed. To sum up, under the influence of changes in the priorities of the central bank and the government, optimal fiscal and monetary responses change, and as a consequence, the Nash equilibrium changes. As the growth rate planned by the fiscal authorities increases, the optimal response of fiscal policy becomes more expansive. Similarly, when monetary authorities change their priorities, e.g., they accept higher inflation, the optimal monetary policy response becomes more expansive. Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 4 of 14 3. The simple model of a non-cooperative game 3.1. The Nash equilibrium—The assumptions of the policy mix model for non-cooperative games The following model is presented and thoroughly analyzed in terms of the theoretical properties in the paper by Stawska et al. (2019). It describes a simple economic game between the government (responsible for the fiscal policy in a given economy) and the central bank (which shapes the monetary policy). Each of these institutions pursues its own economic goals. In this case, a noncooperative game is proposed. Although both the government and the central bank are fully autonomous and independent institutions, in making their decisions, they take into account the decisions of the other, which also affects the macroeconomic conditions. The government determines the size of the budget deficit d to maximize its goal function 1 : FFdð Þ ¼ g2 yα0ddM ð Þ2! dmax (1) subject to the given budget constraint 2 : gy¼α1�dþα2�rþα3�π(2) where gy is the growth rate of GDP per capita, r is the interest rate, dM is the Maastricht deficit limit, π is the level of inflation, and α0, α1, α3> 0 and α2<0 are constant parameters. 3 Thus, the government aims to achieve the highest possible growth rate while maintaining some budgetary discipline in line with the Maastricht deficit limit. At the same time, the central bank determines the interest rate r to minimize the square of the difference between current inflation and the inflation target 4 : FMπð Þ ¼ ππt  �2! rmin (3) subject to: π¼π0þβ1�rþβ2�gyþβ3�d(4) where π0>0 is the base inflation, πt is the inflation target, and β2;β3>0 and β1<0 are constant parameters. It is worth noting that the objective function of the government (1) also depends on the interest rate r; similarly, the objective function of the central bank (3) depends on the size of the current budget deficit d. Thus, there is an interaction between the fiscal and monetary policies in the economy. Thus, when determining the size of the budget deficit, the government has to take into account any potential decisions that the central bank might take and vice versa. After substituting Equations (2) and (4) for, respectively, (1) and (3), the final problem of optimization of the proposed game was obtained: FFdð Þ ¼ α1þα3β3 1α3βFFdð Þ¼ α1þα3β3 1α3β2�dþα2þα3β1 1α3β2�rþα3 1α3β2�π0 � �2 α0ddM ð Þ2 2�dþα2þα3β1 1α3β2�rþα3 1α3β2�π0 0 B @1 C A α0ddM ð Þ2! dmax FMrð Þ ¼ 1 1α3β2�π0þβ1þβ2α2 1α3β2�rþβ3þβ2α1 1α3β2�dπt � �2! rmin (5) Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 5 of 14 In order to determine the Nash equilibrium of model (5), the reaction functions of the government (denoted as ~ d) and the central bank (denoted as ~ r) are obtained: 5 ~ d¼~ a1�rþ~ a2�π0þ~ a3�dM(6) ~ r¼~ b1�πtþ~ b2�π0þ~ b3�d(7) where ~ a2;~ a3;~ b2;~ b3>0;~ a1;~ b1<0are non-linear combinations of parameters α0,α1, α2,α3,β1,β2,β3. 6 Function (6) indicates what should be the optimal fiscal policy response to the adopted monetary strategy of the central bank. Similarly, (7) shows the level of interest rates set by the central bank at the government’s budget deficit level. The Nash equilibrium of the proposed model (denoted as d�;r� ð Þ) corresponds to a situation where the actions of both the government and the central bank represent the best response to the best response of the other player. It is, therefore, a level of d and r which is the solution of Equation (6) and also (7). The Nash equilibrium can, therefore, be written as: d�¼a� 1�πtþa� 2�π0þa� 3�dM(8) r�¼b� 1�πtþb� 2�π0þb� 3�dM(9) where a� 1;a� 3;b� 2;b� 3>0;b� 1<0;a� 22R are also non-linear combinations of parameters α0;α1;α2;α3;β1;β2;β3. 7 Equations (8) and (9) in the next part will be used as the theoretical basis for our empirical research. 4. Empirical evidence 4.1. Dataset The study focuses on the so-called new EU member states from the CEE region. Estimating Equations (6) and (7) requires several conditions to be met. First, it should be remembered that these equations are derived from a model in which there were two independent entities—the government and the central bank—whose decisions interacted with each other. 8 This means that the parameters of these equations can only be estimated for countries that are not in the euro area. Out of these economies, countries that do not conduct independent monetary policy, such as Bulgaria, should also be excluded. Secondly, it should be noted that the condition concerning the deficit level required by the Maastricht Treaty was the same for the entire period. This means that the variable dM is constant over time, and the associated parameter can be estimated from the constant term in the equation. It also means, however, that all other variables are required not to be constant over the period for which we estimate the parameters. Therefore, Poland, where the inflation target was at the same level throughout the examined period, should also be removed from the sample. Czechia, Hungary, and Romania were, therefore, ultimately included in the study. The sample range in each case is equal to their membership in the EU. In each case, the base/reference rates of the national central banks were adopted as interest rates in the model. As the base inflation rate in each country, a different core inflation indicator is taken. Table 1 provides details of these variables. 9 Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 6 of 14 Inflation targets were obtained from the national banks’ websites. The annual deficit level (cyclically adjusted balance, 10 % of potential GDP) was derived from the IMF’s Fiscal Monitor (October 2019). 4.2. Estimation details The aim of the empirical study is to obtain estimates of the parameters of reaction functions (6) and (7). These equations are a set of mutually interdependent equations. However, this system has a reduced form (8) and (9), in which the random terms in both equations are already independent. Therefore, we make the assumption that the deficit and interest rate levels in individual economies follow models (1)—(4), and therefore are at the level of the Nash equilibrium, taking into account the random deviation associated with the imperfection of the data set. Having estimates of the parameters for the equations of the Nash equilibrium levels, we will obtain the values of the parameters of the reaction functions, as model (6)-(7) is unequivocally identifiable. Estimating the parameters of model (6)-(7) will, therefore, be carried out by the Indirect Least Square Method. Equations (8) and (9) were, therefore, subject to parameter estimation using the Least Squares Method. The data collected and described in section 4.1 required minor conversions. For variable d (deficit), the annual data are converted into quarterly data by inserting a fourth part of the yearround deficit for each quarter of the year. As a result, the set of data used has increased from several to several dozen observations. The resulting time series are then multiplied by (−1) to reflect the deficit according to a theoretical model (1)-(4). Let us also note that during the analyzed period, the variable dM took a constant value of 3%, so the parameter is obtained from the estimated constant term. The parameters a� 1;a� 2;a� 3;b� 1;b� 2;b� 3 of six functions expressing the Nash equilibrium are therefore estimated, two for each of the three countries. In each case, it was necessary to remove the thirddegree trend from the dependent variable or from one of the explanatory variables before estimating. Some dummy variables were also added in each estimation. The final forms of the estimated functions were free from autocorrelation; the determination coefficient ranged from 0.40 to 0.92 in various equations. The obtained estimates of the parameters of Equations (8) and (9) are contained in Table 2. 4.3. Results of the reaction functions and discussion After estimating parameters a� 1;a� 2;a� 3;b� 1;b� 2;b� 3 in the Nash equilibrium Equations (8)-(9), it was then possible to calculate the values of parameters ~ a1;~ a2;~ a3;~ b1;~ b2;~ b3 from reaction functions (6)- (7). For this purpose, the following formulas were used: Table 1. Interest rates and base inflation dataset details Country Sample range Number of observations Interest rate Base inflation Source Czechia 2004Q22019Q2 61 Repo rate Core inflation excluding prices of energy, food, alcohol, and tobacco Czech National Bank (CNB), IMF, FRED Hungary 2004Q22019Q2 61 Base rate MNB core inflation Magyar Nemzeti Bank (MNB), IMF Romania 2007Q12019Q2 50 NBR reference interest rate, Policy Rate (since 2011) Core inflation National Bank of Romania (NBR), IMF, Thomson Reuters Eikon Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 7 of 14 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Economics & Finance (ISSN: 2332-2039) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Stawska et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1869380 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1869380 Page 14 of 14