OPINION

by k a r t i k at h r e ya Is the Fed Too Active?

ome observers have recently voiced concern that Fed So the goal of redressing at least some aspects of activities in the areas of climate change and inequal- has long been a Fed concern. Indeed, Sity may put the institution at risk. In a forthcoming the Richmond Fed strives to understand the full range of Duke Law Journal article, for instance, Christina Parajon economic outcomes of Fifth District residents, including Skinner of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School inequities, and among them, those that occur along racial argues that the Fed must avoid the temptation to engage in lines. To fail here would hinder our ability to fulfill our “ activism” by pushing its powers beyond the mandate under the CRA and to provide better informa- text and purpose of its legal mandate to address “imme- tion via the and other means to guide mone - diate public policy problems” such as climate change tary policy. As Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin and economic inequality. She cautions, “Activism under- has pointed out, “The regional Fed banks are charged mines the legitimacy of central bank authority, with understanding the dynamics within our erodes its political independence, and ultimately “We should districts. In pursuit of that goal, we have been renders a weaker central bank.” In a recent Wall investing in research that addresses these Street Journal op-ed, Michael Belongia of the always strive to issues and the racial inequities that result.” University of Mississippi and Peter Ireland of understand forces Lately, the connection between mone- Boston College voiced similar concerns about Fed that plausibly tary policy and economic inclusion has drawn activities in the area of income inequality. increased attention. Some observers have voiced These are points that I as a central banker take matter for U.S. concern that the goal of redressing income to heart. The Fed’s mandate is, indeed, derived macroeconomic inequality could create an “easing” bias in mone- from and circumscribed by laws passed by performance.” tary policy, while others have argued that mone- Congress, so it is incumbent upon us to under- tary policy has enriched asset holders and left stand and heed the limits of the mandate. A low-wealth households behind. There is no central distinction that these critics have sharpened for me doubt that Fed leadership is concerned about how its policies is the one between conducting research to better understand matter for those at the lower end of economic well-being. issues of obvious macroeconomic relevance versus advo- This concern seems fully consistent with the Fed’s longstand- cating for specific policies to change outcomes. To fail at ing dual mandate under the 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act the former would be derelict in light of the Fed’s existing — otherwise known as the Full Employment and Balanced mandate, just as doing the latter would take us afield. Growth Act. In the arena of climate change, our focus at the From a research perspective, though, there is a narrower Richmond Fed has been on conducting and supporting reason for Fed researchers to better understand broad research to better understand its potential implications for disparities in the economy, such as those that occur along the macroeconomy, including across the array of key stake- racial lines: Like virtually any disparity between groups holders (consumers, business, the energy sector). Our activ- that themselves contain huge variety (especially race), ity includes conducting research aimed at measuring how sustained racial gaps are not plausibly consistent with an climate change and extreme weather affect U.S. growth and economy operating at its potential. financial stability. And it includes engagement with experts A bottom line for me is this: We should always strive from across sectors, including carbon-producing ones, on to understand forces that plausibly matter for U.S. macro- how to best navigate the road ahead. What this means economic performance. This includes climate change and for even our policy, though, is not yet clear. As Fed Chair large-scale economic inequalities. But because it is import- has stated, “We’re quite actively exploring ant for the Fed to remain clearly rooted in its congressio- exactly what climate implications are for our supervisory, nal mandates, our externally facing activity needs to stay regulatory and financial stability responsibilities.” focused on trade-offs and, aside from clear “win-win” cases, In the arena of income inequality, it is important to start avoid advocating for policies that lie outside our remit. My by recognizing the Fed’s longstanding mandate under the aim for the Richmond Fed is to ensure that our research, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. The CRA and the best work we know of, informs the public and poli- requires the Fed “to encourage financial institutions to cymakers about the economic trade-offs at play.EF help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they do business, including low- and moderate-income Kartik Athreya is executive vice president and director of neighborhoods.” research at the Bank of Richmond.

36 econ focus • second/third quarter • 2021 Share this article: https://bit.ly/q2-3-opinion