Mechanisms for Achieving Monetary Stability: Inflation Targeting Versus the ERM
Canzoneri (1985) and Rogoff (1985) showed that imposing symmetric penalties on a central bank for deviations from an announced inflation target would reduce the Barro-Gordon inflation bias, but only at the expense of distorting the central bank’s stabilization effort. More recently, Walsh (1995) and Persson and Tabellini (1993) showed that a simple linear penalty on all observed inflation would eliminate the inflation bias without distorting the stabilization effort. We view this result as a methodological criticism of the Barro-Gordon model, and not a statement about the ease with which the bias can be eliminated. Thus, we begin by modifying the Barro-Gordon model to reintroduce the trade-off between inflation credibility and stabilization, even when linear inflation penalties are imposed. We then discuss how either type of penalty might actually be imposed, and ask whether inflation targeting (supported by one or the other type of penalty) is likely to bring a better resolution to the credibility-stabilization trade-off than the ERM.
|Date of creation:||Jun 1996|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.|
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
|Order Information:|| Email: |
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:1418. See general 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: ()The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask to update the entry or send us the correct email address
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.