The NAIRU: A Critical Appraisal
This paper is concerned with the question of the relevance of the NAIRU for policy formulation. However, that question leads to the following consideration. The estimates for the NAIRU are based on the econometric estimation of models of the economy. Particular models are used and particular interpretations are placed on the relationship between the variables which the model involves. Since the NAIRU can never be directly observed, resort has to be made to the econometric estimation of wage and price equations from which an equilibrium solution for unemployment is derived and labeled the NAIRU. It is therefore important to know how valid those models are and the estimates derived from those models. Whilst some have pointed to the unreliability of those estimates (e.g. Setterfield et alia, 1992) and others to the degree of uncertainty surrounding the estimates (e.g. Madsen, 1997), others have put a great deal of faith in specific estimates: for example the ‘Tightness in the labor market is measured by the excess of CBO's estimate of the non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) over the actual unemployment rate. It is an indicator of future wage inflation' (Congressional Budget Office, 1994, p. 4), and that Office uses an estimate of 6 percent for the NAIRU. One expression of the belief in the NAIRU is given by Stiglitz when he writes that ‘I have become convinced that the NAIRU is a useful analytic concept. It is useful as a theory to understand the causes of inflation. It is useful as an empirical basis for predicting changes in the inflation rate. And it is useful as a general guideline for thinking about macroeconomic policy' (Stiglitz, 1997, p. 3). The focus pf this paper is not on the reliability or otherwise of estimates of the NAIRU, but rather to evaluate the theoretical foundation of the models from which the NAIRU has been derived. For if those models are on some relevant criteria judged to be unsound, then estimates and policy conclusion derived are seemly unsound.
|Date of creation:||24 Dec 1997|
|Note:||Type of Document - Acrobat PDF; prepared on IBM PC ; to print on PostScript; pages: 38; figures: included|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://econwpa.repec.org|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- R. Layard & S. Nickell, 1985. "The Causes of British Unemployment," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 111(1), pages 62-85, February.
- repec:sae:niesru:v:111:y::i:1:p:62-85 is not listed on IDEAS
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpma:9712013. 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: (EconWPA)
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.