| Abstract: | Received evidence suggests that changes in appointer- and overseer-preferencesinfluence monetary policy (i.e., partisan heritage matters).Evidence presented here, on the other hand, is consistent withchanges in the cost of pursuing a common preference influencingpolicy. I draw this evidence from a panel of Federal Open MarketCommittee (FOMC) votes and find support for the following conclusions:(1) Federal Reserve Board (FRB) governors who were nominatedand confirmed by the same party (Republican or Democrat) prefersignificantly looser policy than do other FOMC members. (2)Monetary policy is significantly looser when either party controlsthe oversight mechanism (i.e., the presidency and Senate) thanwhen control is split. (3) Oversight acts less forcefully ondistrict bank presidents than on FRB governors. In short, thepresent evidence suggests that political agents from both partiesprefer loose money and pursue this preference more efficientlywhen their parties are aligned. |
