Central bank research papers tend to portray Quantitative Easing (QE) more favorably and as more effective compared to academic studies. A survey comparing findings on QE found that central bank papers frequently use more positive language and suggest more significant macroeconomic impacts from QE than academic papers. This difference in tone and conclusions is notable, with central bank researchers often reporting that QE is more effective.
This disparity could be influenced by career incentives within central banks, as researchers may be more likely to use favorable language regarding policies their institutions implement. Central bank papers are also more prone to using positive adjectives in their abstracts when discussing QE's effects. The study indicates that roughly half of central bank papers find QE to be more effective than academic papers suggest.
The comparison highlights potential biases in how the effectiveness of monetary policy tools like QE is communicated. While central bank papers often find QE to be quite significant, academic research may offer a more varied or tempered assessment of its impact on economic output and other macroeconomic factors. This suggests a potential difference in reporting and interpretation between institutional researchers and independent academics.
