New evidence on the output cost of fighting inflation
AbstractThe Federal Reserve has made significant progress toward price stability over the last two decades. The annual inflation rate has declined from 13 percent in the early 1980s to roughly 2 percent today. But, to be sure, the current low-inflation environment has come at a price.> One key cost of achieving low inflation is the output loss that generally accompanies a permanent decline in inflation, as occurred in the early 1980s and early 1990s. Another more subtle output cost of fighting inflation is the cost of preventing inflation from rising. As incipient inflation pressures build, tighter monetary policy can slow the economy and thereby preemptively forestall the rise in actual inflation. The slower output growth is the cost of resisting inflation pressures. Together, these two output costs of fighting inflation play important roles in determining how best to maintain low inflation and how to seek further disinflation toward price stability.> A significant factor determining the output cost of fighting inflation is the tradeoff between inflation and output, often referred to as the Phillips curve. Traditionally, estimates of this relationship assume the shape of this curve is linear. This implies that the slope of the Phillips curve is a constant and, therefore, independent of the stage of the business cycle, the speed of the disinflation, and how aggressively incipient inflation pressures are fought. Recent research, however, has begun to question whether the slope is constant. Assessing the output cost of fighting inflation may be more complicated than traditionally assumed.> Filardo investigates the shape of the Phillips curve and the associated output cost of fighting inflation. He concludes that, while the Phillips curve traditionally has been thought of as approximately linear, closer examination of the inflation-output relationship reveals important nonlinearities. This new evidence and its implications for the output cost of fighting inflation may require new policy strategies.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in its journal Economic Review.
Volume (Year): (1998)
Issue (Month): Q III ()
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Diane Rosenberger).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.