As the global economy moves beyond the inflationary surge of 2021-2023 toward more moderate price dynamics, the prospect of monetary policy easing in 2026 has become a focal point for policymakers and financial markets. Following several years of restrictive monetary policy aimed at restoring price stability, central banks now face the challenge of recalibrating policy to support growth without reigniting inflation. This insight examines the rationale, likelihood, and potential forms of monetary easing in 2026 across major economies, combining academic insights with institutional forecasts and recent media evidence.

Monetary easing, through interest rate reductions or balance sheet adjustments, is typically implemented once inflationary pressures recede and economic slack emerges.[1] Current projections suggest that slowing inflation, moderating labor markets, and uneven regional growth will create conditions conducive to easing, albeit in a highly differentiated manner across economies.

Several macroeconomic forces converge in 2026. Global disinflation, supported by easing supply constraints and past monetary tightening, provides scope for policy normalization, while the lagged effects of restrictive policies continue to weigh on investment and credit. At the same time, cross-country divergences complicate the outlook: advanced economies appear better positioned for gradual easing, whereas some emerging markets face constraints linked to inflation persistence and financial vulnerabilities.

Financial markets have already begun to price in these dynamics, as reflected in yield curve behavior and heightened interest rate volatility. In this context, forward-looking analysis of inflation trends, growth prospects, labor market conditions, and policy communication is essential to assessing the scope and limits of monetary easing in 2026.

1. Theoretical Framework: When Do Central Banks Ease?

The academic literature on monetary policy emphasizes that monetary easing is inherently conditional and state-dependent, rather than mechanical. Central banks adjust policy in response to evolving macroeconomic conditions, particularly inflation dynamics, output performance, and expectations. Classical and modern monetary theories converge on the view that easing is optimal when inflation moves toward the central bank’s target, when output gaps widen, or when growth slows below potential.[2]^{, [3], [4]} This conditionality underscores the forward-looking nature of policy: central banks often act pre-emptively to stabilize expectations and support economic activity, rather than simply reacting to current data.

Contemporary analytical frameworks rely heavily on New Keynesian and DSGE models, which incorporate forward-looking behavior, price rigidities, and the critical role of expectations. Within these models, monetary policy is typically represented through reaction functions, such as Taylor-type rules, where interest rates are adjusted in response to deviations of inflation from target and output from potential.[5]^, [6] Easing becomes theoretically optimal when inflation pressures ease and real economic slack emerges, provided that inflation expectations remain well anchored.

Empirical evidence, however, indicates that the effectiveness of monetary policy may be more limited and heterogeneous than classical models suggest. Meta-analytic studies show that while policy significantly influences output and inflation, the effects are often smaller, uneven across contexts, and subject to long lags.[7] These findings highlight the importance of pre-emptive and data-driven policymaking, as delayed action can exacerbate downturns, whereas premature easing risks destabilizing inflation expectations.

Since the global financial crisis, the scope of monetary easing has expanded to include unconventional tools such as quantitative easing, forward guidance, and balance-sheet policies. These instruments operate through portfolio rebalancing, signaling effects, and term-premium compression, complementing traditional interest rate cuts in periods of subdued inflation and weak demand.[8] Their effectiveness varies across economies, depending on institutional settings and market structures.

Nonetheless, easing is not without risks. Prolonged accommodative policies may encourage excessive risk-taking, inflate asset prices, and threaten financial stability, particularly in highly leveraged environments. Global spillovers from easing by major central banks, through capital flows and exchange rates, can further constrain the policy space of smaller or emerging economies.

In the context of 2026, this theoretical framework suggests that monetary easing will likely be gradual, data-dependent, and highly differentiated across economies. While declining inflation and moderating growth may indicate room for policy accommodation, central banks must carefully balance domestic stabilization objectives against financial stability concerns and international spillovers. The decision environment is thus complex, underscoring the need for state-contingent, forward-looking policy rather than a synchronized global shift toward easing.

2. Global Inflation Trends and the Case for Monetary Easing

Global disinflation trends provide an increasingly favorable backdrop for monetary easing in 2026, though the landscape remains highly heterogeneous across regions. Following the post-pandemic inflation surge of 2021-2023, global price dynamics have entered a phase of gradual normalization. Headline inflation is projected to continue declining through 2025 and into 2026, reflecting the combined effects of easing supply constraints, moderating energy and food prices, and the delayed impact of previously restrictive monetary policies.[9] Within the OECD area, inflation is expected to fall to approximately 3% by 2026, moving closer to the 2% target typical of most advanced-economy central banks. This broad-based decline addresses one of the main obstacles to monetary easing: persistent inflation above target.

Beyond headline measures, underlying price pressures, captured by core inflation, also show signs of moderation. Core inflation, which excludes volatile components such as energy and food, has declined more gradually but increasingly aligns with medium-term inflation objectives in several advanced economies. This trend suggests that disinflation is not simply the result of temporary base effects or commodity price swings but reflects deeper structural adjustments in demand and wage dynamics.[10]^{, [11]} Sustained declines in core inflation are particularly critical for central banks, as they signal a reduced risk of inflation re-acceleration once policy easing is implemented.

In the euro area, the case for easing appears particularly compelling. Institutional and market-based forecasts indicate that inflation is likely to continue slowing and may even undershoot the ECB’s 2% target by 2026. AXA Investment Managers projects eurozone inflation to stabilize around 1.7%, reflecting subdued domestic demand, slower credit growth, and weakening wage pressures.[12] Prolonged inflation below target raises concerns about insufficient demand and the entrenchment of low inflation expectations, strengthening the rationale for an accommodative monetary stance.

However, global inflation dynamics are far from uniform. Several economies continue to face elevated inflation due to structural factors such as exchange-rate pass-through, fiscal imbalances, or supply-side rigidities. For instance, Russia’s central bank has explicitly warned against premature easing, noting that underlying inflation pressures remain elevated despite improvements in headline indicators.[13] These divergences underscore a key insight from theory and practice: inflation moderation is necessary but not sufficient for monetary easing. Central banks must also evaluate the credibility of inflation expectations, labor-market tightness, and price-setting resilience, as easing in an environment of fragile expectations can undermine credibility and trigger renewed inflationary pressures.[14]

In sum, while global disinflation trends provide a favorable backdrop for monetary easing in 2026, the pace, scope, and timing of policy adjustments are likely to be selective, gradual, and highly dependent on country-specific inflation dynamics. Advanced economies with well-anchored expectations and weakening demand are better positioned to lower interest rates, whereas economies facing persistent structural inflation risks may need to maintain restrictive policies for longer periods, resulting in a differentiated global easing cycle.

3. Major Economies: Divergent Monetary Paths in 2026

3.1  United States: A Gradual Easing Path?

In the United States, the Federal Reserve stands at the center of global monetary policy expectations. After a period of tightening in 2022-2024, markets now price in further rate cuts into 2026, even though policymakers have signaled cautious pacing.[15] Some brokerages forecast around 50 basis points of additional Fed rate cuts in 2026 while maintaining that timing and magnitude will be highly data-dependent.[16]

The Fed’s caution stems from its dual mandate, price stability and maximum employment. Although inflation has eased from peak levels, it remains modestly above target in some measures (e.g., headline CPI and PCE). Fed officials have emphasized the need for sustained evidence of inflation moving toward 2% before committing to significant easing.

Academic and policy analyses confirm that central banks often lag market expectations, especially when they seek confidence that inflation is durably contained.[17] Indeed, as Reuters reporting notes, the Fed may not deliver all the rate cuts markets hope for, emphasizing stable economic prospects over dramatic easing.[18]

Nevertheless, softer labor market data or a cooling in economic activity could prompt rate cuts, particularly if inflation expectations remain anchored. Economic forecasts for 2026, including an expected rebound in growth, support a scenario of modest easing rather than aggressive loosening.[19]

3.2  Euro Area: Room for Accommodative Policy

In the euro area, forecasts point to inflation stabilizing below target and growth remaining modest. Policymakers in the European Central Bank must balance subdued demand with inflation dynamics. An environment where inflation sits below target for an extended period creates a strong rationale for policy easing.

European forecasts suggest the ECB could lower the deposit rate further in 2026 relative to current levels, potentially entering an accommodative stance if inflation continues to undershoot targets and domestic demand remains weak.[20] The OECD projects continued disinflation and moderate growth for the euro area, reinforcing this narrative.

The structural dynamics of the eurozone, characterized by slower productivity growth and demographic headwinds, may also predispose policymakers to maintain supportive monetary conditions to stimulate investment and employment.

3.3  United Kingdom: Mixed Signals, Conditional Easing

In the United Kingdom, recent economic indicators and business sentiment suggest a modest upgrade to 2026 growth forecasts. However, inflation remains slightly above target, complicating the Bank of England’s policy calculus. Reuters reporting indicates expectations for limited rate cuts (two further reductions) and a moderately restrictive stance compared to markets’ pricing.[21]

This reflects classic monetary policy dilemmas described in academic models: when inflation expectations are unanchored or persist above target, central banks must resist calls for aggressive easing to preserve credibility and long-term stability.

3.4  Emerging Markets: Heterogeneous Easing

Emerging market central banks are likely to pursue a divergent set of policies in 2026, depending on local conditions. For example, the Central Bank of the Philippines implemented a cut in its benchmark rate, reflecting domestic conditions where growth concerns outweigh inflation risks.[22] In contrast, in Pakistan, persistent inflation risk has led central banks to maintain tight policy stances, delaying easing until late 2026 or beyond.[23]

Academic work on monetary policy in developing countries highlights these heterogeneities, noting that factors like exchange rate regimes, central bank independence, and financial development strongly influence policy efficacy and timing.[24] As such, emerging markets will not follow a uniform easing path; rather, local shocks, inflation dynamics, and external vulnerabilities will shape each trajectory.

4. Monetary Transmission Mechanisms and Easing Prospects

A critical consideration for assessing the prospects of monetary easing in 2026 is the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism, namely, the channels through which changes in policy stance influence real economic activity. In conventional monetary theory, reductions in policy interest rates lower borrowing costs for households and firms, stimulate private investment and consumption, and weaken the domestic currency, thereby improving external competitiveness and supporting aggregate demand.[25]^, [26] These mechanisms constitute the core rationale behind interest rate easing as a countercyclical policy instrument.

However, empirical evidence suggests that the strength and speed of these transmission channels vary considerably across countries and over time. Analytic studies indicate that the effects of monetary policy on output and inflation are statistically significant but often modest, heterogeneous, and subject to substantial time lags, particularly in periods characterized by financial frictions or heightened uncertainty.[27] Such findings challenge the assumption of a uniform and predictable response of the real economy to policy easing and underscore the importance of structural context.

One key determinant of transmission effectiveness is the depth and efficiency of domestic financial markets. In economies with well-developed banking systems and capital markets, lower policy rates are more likely to translate into increased credit supply and lower lending rates. Conversely, in economies where financial intermediation is constrained, due to weak balance sheets, high non-performing loans, or regulatory frictions, rate cuts may have a limited impact on investment and consumption.[28] This heterogeneity implies that monetary easing in 2026 may produce uneven outcomes, even among economies facing similar macroeconomic conditions.

Beyond domestic channels, global financial linkages play an increasingly important role in shaping monetary transmission. In an environment of high capital mobility, monetary easing in major economies can trigger cross-border capital flows, influence exchange rates, and alter global financial conditions. While currency depreciation can enhance export competitiveness, it may also raise imported inflation, particularly in economies with high dependence on foreign inputs or energy imports. As a result, the net effect of easing on inflation and growth may differ sharply across countries.[29]

These dynamics are particularly relevant in the context of a potentially synchronized easing cycle in 2026. If multiple major central banks simultaneously loosen policy, the traditional exchange-rate channel may be muted, while global liquidity conditions may intensify asset price dynamics and capital flow volatility. For example, a broad-based easing that weakens the U.S. dollar could alleviate financial conditions globally but also transmit inflationary pressures to import-dependent economies, complicating domestic stabilization efforts.

Taken together, these considerations suggest that monetary easing in 2026 should not be assessed solely on the basis of macroeconomic indicators such as inflation and growth. Central banks must also evaluate the effectiveness and side effects of transmission channels, including credit responsiveness, financial stability risks, and international spillovers. This complexity reinforces the likelihood that easing, where it occurs, will be gradual, carefully calibrated, and complemented by clear policy communication to manage expectations and mitigate unintended consequences.

5. Risks and Constraints to Easing in 2026

Despite growing market expectations for monetary easing in 2026, central banks face a range of risks and structural constraints that may delay, limit, or complicate such policy shifts. These constraints reflect both cyclical uncertainties and deeper structural challenges that shape the post-inflationary macroeconomic environment.

5.1 Inflation Persistence and Upside Risks

One of the primary risks to easing is the possibility that inflation proves more persistent than currently forecast. While headline inflation has declined in many economies, underlying price pressures may re-emerge due to geopolitical tensions, supply-chain disruptions, or renewed volatility in energy and commodity markets. The literature emphasizes that easing in the presence of fragile disinflation can undermine credibility and lead to a de-anchoring of inflation expectations.[30]^{, [31]} As such, central banks may prefer to maintain a restrictive stance until there is clear evidence that inflation has durably converged toward the target.

5.2 Labor Market Resilience

Strong labor market conditions represent a second constraint on monetary easing. In several advanced economies, unemployment rates remain historically low and wage growth elevated, reflecting tight labor supply and structural shifts in labor markets. Persistent wage pressures can sustain services inflation even as goods prices moderate, reducing the urgency for policy rate cuts. Empirical studies highlight the central role of labor market slack in inflation dynamics, particularly in New Keynesian models where wage rigidity and bargaining power influence price-setting behavior.[32]

5.3 Fiscal Pressures and Public Debt

High public debt levels and expansionary fiscal policies further complicate monetary easing decisions. In many economies, elevated debt-to-GDP ratios increase sensitivity to interest rate changes and may create implicit pressure on central banks to ease financial conditions. However, close alignment between monetary and fiscal policy risks eroding central bank independence and fueling concerns about fiscal dominance.[33]^{, [34]} Central banks must therefore balance macroeconomic stabilization objectives against the need to preserve policy credibility and institutional autonomy.

5.4 Financial Stability Risks

Prolonged accommodative monetary policy can also generate financial stability concerns. Low interest rates may encourage excessive risk-taking, inflate asset prices, and increase leverage in both the financial and non-financial sectors. Academic and policy analyses increasingly emphasize that financial cycles can amplify macroeconomic volatility, suggesting that monetary easing must account for its potential impact on asset markets and systemic risk.[35] These considerations may limit the scope for aggressive or prolonged easing, even in the presence of subdued inflation.

Taken together, these risks place central banks in a narrow policy corridor in 2026. Premature easing could reignite inflationary pressures and destabilize expectations, while excessive caution risks deepening economic slowdowns and delaying recovery. Navigating this corridor will require careful sequencing of policy actions, close monitoring of inflation expectations and labor markets, and transparent communication to anchor expectations. As a result, any easing cycle in 2026 is likely to be gradual, conditional, and responsive to evolving macro-financial conditions rather than pre-committed or uniform across economies.

6. Markets and Expectations: Forward Guidance in Policy Easing

Financial markets play a central role in shaping the effectiveness of monetary policy, particularly during periods of anticipated easing. By late 2025, market-based indicators, such as yield curves, interest rate futures, and options pricing, were already assigning a significant probability to policy rate cuts in 2026 across several advanced economies. In the United States, for example, market participants and major brokerages diverged in their expectations regarding the timing and magnitude of easing, with some forecasting up to 50 basis points of cumulative Federal Reserve rate cuts during 2026, while others adopted more cautious scenarios reflecting continued inflation uncertainty.[36]^{, [37]} This dispersion of expectations underscores the uncertainty surrounding the macroeconomic outlook and the conditional nature of future policy decisions.

From a theoretical perspective, expectations are a key transmission channel of monetary policy. Modern macroeconomic models emphasize that anticipated future policy actions can influence current economic behavior by shaping borrowing, investment, and consumption decisions.[38] Forward guidance, defined as central banks’ communication regarding the likely future path of monetary policy, has therefore become an essential instrument, particularly in environments where policy rates are near their effective lower bound or where central banks seek to influence longer-term interest rates without immediate policy moves.

Empirical research suggests that forward guidance can significantly affect financial conditions by reducing uncertainty and anchoring market expectations, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of monetary easing.[39]^, [40] Clear and credible guidance can compress term premia, stabilize yield curves, and limit excessive volatility during transitions between policy regimes. In this sense, communication is not merely complementary to policy action but constitutes a policy tool in its own right.

However, forward guidance also carries risks. When market expectations diverge materially from central bank intentions, communication gaps can generate heightened volatility and abrupt repricing in financial markets. Episodes of misalignment, such as overly optimistic market pricing of rate cuts, may force central banks to adopt a more cautious communication strategy to avoid undermining credibility. Academic studies highlight that ambiguous or inconsistent guidance can weaken policy transmission and increase uncertainty, particularly in periods of structural change or elevated macroeconomic risk.[41]

In the context of prospective easing in 2026, the challenge for central banks will be to balance transparency with flexibility. Overly explicit commitments may constrain policy responses to new data, while excessive ambiguity may fail to anchor expectations effectively. As a result, central banks are likely to rely on state-contingent forward guidance, emphasizing data dependence and conditionality rather than pre-committing to a specific easing path. This approach allows policymakers to manage market expectations while preserving the ability to respond to evolving inflation and growth dynamics.

Ultimately, the interaction between market expectations and central bank communication will play a decisive role in determining the effectiveness of any easing cycle in 2026. Well-calibrated forward guidance can smooth the transition toward lower rates, whereas persistent misalignment between markets and policymakers may amplify volatility and weaken the transmission of monetary easing.

Conclusion

The prospects for monetary easing in 2026 are expected to be conditional, gradual, and highly differentiated across countries and regions. The disinflation observed since 2023 has opened some room for policy accommodation, but persistent uncertainties around inflation expectations, labor market resilience, and financial stability continue to limit aggressive action.

In advanced economies, the outlook varies: the U.S. is likely to pursue cautious, incremental easing to ensure inflation sustainably aligns with its target; the euro area may adopt a more accommodative stance due to subdued domestic demand and the risk of inflation undershooting the ECB’s target; the U.K. is expected to ease gradually amid mixed signals from inflation and labor markets. Emerging and developing economies will follow heterogeneous paths shaped by domestic inflation persistence, fiscal constraints, exchange-rate vulnerabilities, and exposure to global capital flows.

Monetary policy in 2026 will remain data-driven and forward-looking, with central banks carefully weighing the trade-off between premature easing, which could reignite inflation, and excessive delays, which could hinder economic recovery. The effectiveness of policy will depend not only on interest rate adjustments but also on the credibility of central banks, the functioning of monetary transmission mechanisms, and financial stability considerations.

In this context, policy communication and forward guidance will be increasingly important: clear, state-contingent messaging can help align market expectations, reduce volatility, and enhance the impact of easing measures. Ultimately, successful monetary easing will require navigating a narrow policy corridor, balancing support for sustainable economic growth with the preservation of price stability and financial resilience.

[1] Mirza Khidasheli, “The Unforeseen Results of Unconventional Monetary Dominance,” Globalization and Business 9, no. 17 (2024): 59-67.

[2] Marvin Goodfriend and Robert G. King, “The new neoclassical synthesis and the role of monetary policy,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 12 (1997): 231-283.

[3] Lars E.O. Svensson, “Inflation targeting as a monetary policy rule,” Journal of Monetary Economics 43, no. 3 (1999): 607-654.

[4] Michael Woodford and Carl Walsh, “Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy,” Macroeconomic Dynamics 9, no. 3 (2005): 462-468.

[5] Richard Clarida, Jordi Gali, and Mark Gertler, “The Science of Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Perspective,” Journal of Economic Literature 37, no. 4 (1999): 1661-1707.

[6] John B. Taylor, “Discretion versus policy rules in practice,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39 (December 1993): pp. 195-214.

[7] Ricardo Alonzo Fernandez Salguero, “An Analysis of Monetary Policy Evidence and Theory through Meta-Analyses,” arXiv, 2025, arXiv:2509.19591.

[8] Julie Remache, Joseph Gagnon, Brian Sack, and Matthew Raskin, “The Financial Market Effects of the Federal Reserve’s Large-Scale Asset Purchases,” International Journal of Central Banking 7, no. 1 (2011). Available at SSRN 4858959.

[9] OECD, “Economic Outlook: Global growth to remain resilient in 2025 and 2026 despite significant risks,” December 2024, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2024/12/economic-outlook-global-growth-to-remain-resilient-in-2025-and-2026-despite-significant-risks.html.

[10] Woodford and Walsh, “Interest and prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy.”

[11] Clarida, Gali, and Gertler, “The science of monetary policy: a new Keynesian perspective.”

[12] “Eurozone Outlook – Slowly taking off,” AXA Investment Managers, 2025, https://www.axa-im.com/investment-institute/market-views/annual-outlook/eurozone-outlook-slowly-taking.

[13] “Rapid easing of monetary policy may threaten 4% inflation target in 2026 — Bank of Russia,” TASS, Russian News Agency, 2025, https://tass.com/economy/2056095.

[14] Svensson, “Inflation targeting as a monetary policy rule,” 607-654.

[15] “Fed may not give Trump his rate cuts, but has set out a positive view of the 2026 economy,” Reuters, December 11, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fed-may-not-give-trump-his-rate-cuts-has-set-out-positive-view-2026-economy-2025-12-11/.

[16] “Brokerages stick with US rate cut forecasts despite Fed caution,” Reuters, December 11, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/brokerages-stick-with-us-rate-cut-forecasts-despite-fed-caution-2025-12-11/

[17] Salguero, “An Analysis of Monetary Policy Evidence and Theory through Meta-Analyses.”

[18] “Fed may not give Trump his rate cuts, but has set out a positive view of the 2026 economy.”

[19] “Economic outlook for 2026, focusing on the United States, the UK, Canada and Australia,” RSM US, 2025,  https://rsmus.com/insights/economics/economic-outlook-for-2026.html.

[20] “Eurozone Outlook – Slowly taking off.”

[21] “UK’s CBI bumps up 2026 growth view due to ‘temporary’ budget boost,” Reuters, December 12, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/uks-cbi-bumps-up-2026-growth-view-due-temporary-budget-boost-2025-12-12/.

[22] “Philippine central bank cuts policy rate, signals easing cycle nearing an end,” Reuters, December 11, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philippine-central-bank-cuts-policy-rate-by-25-bps-450-expected-2025-12-11/

[23] “Pakistan central bank likely to hold rate at 11% as IMF flags inflation risks – Reuters poll,” Reuters, December 12, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-central-bank-likely-hold-rate-11-imf-flags-inflation-risks-2025-12-12/.

[24] Marouane Daoui, “Monetary Policy and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: A Literature Review,” arXiv, 2023, arXiv:2303.03162.

[25] Frederic S. Mishkin, “The Channels of Monetary Transmission: Lessons for Monetary Policy,” NBER, 1996.

[26] Ben S. Bernanke and Mark Gertler, “Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 4 (1995): 27-48.

[27] Salguero, “An Analysis of Monetary Policy Evidence and Theory through Meta-Analyses.”

[28] Mark Gertler and Peter Karadi, “A model of unconventional monetary policy,” Journal of Monetary Economics 58, no. 1 (2011): 17-34.

[29] Maurice Obstfeld, “Trilemmas and tradeoffs: living with financial globalisation,” In The Asian Monetary Policy Forum: Insights for Central Banking (2021): pp. 16-84.

[30] Svensson, “Inflation targeting as a monetary policy rule.”

[31] Woodford and Walsh, “Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy.”

[32] Olivier Blanchard and Jordi Galí, “Labor Markets and Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Model with Unemployment,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2, no. 2 (2010): 1-30.

[33] Thomas J. Sargent and Neil Wallace, “Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 5, no. 3 (1981): 1-17.

[34] Eric M. Leeper, “Monetary-Fiscal Policy Interactions for Central Bankers,” Australian Government (2023), Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia: An RBA fit for the Future.

[35] Claudio Borio, “The financial cycle and macroeconomics: What have we learnt?,” Journal of Banking & Finance 45 (2014): 182-198.

[36] “Fed may not give Trump his rate cuts, but has set out a positive view of the 2026 economy.”

[37] “Brokerages stick with US rate cut forecasts despite Fed caution.”

[38] Woodford and Walsh, “Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy.”

[39] Jeffrey R. Campbell, Charles L. Evans, Jonas D.M. Fisher, Alejandro Justiniano, Charles W. Calomiris, and Michael Woodford, “Macroeconomic Effects of Federal Reserve Forward Guidance,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2012, 1-80.

[40] Refet S. Gürkaynak, Brian Sack, and Eric T. Swanson, “Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? The Response of Asset Prices to Monetary Policy Actions and Statements,” International Journal of Central Banking 1, no. 1 (2018).

[41] Alan S. Blinder, Michael Ehrmann, Marcel Fratzscher, Jakob De Haan, and David-Jan Jansen, “Central Bank Communication and Monetary Policy: A Survey of Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Economic Literature 46, no. 4 (2008): 910-945.