This paper investigates the predictions of a simple optimizing model of nominal price rigidity for the aggregate price level and the dynamics of inflation. I compare the model’s predictions with those of a perfectly competitive, flexible price ‘benchmark’ model (corresponding to the model of pricing assumed in standard real business cycle models), and evaluate how much the introduction of nominal rigidities improves the model’s fit with the data. The model’s predictions are derived using only the firms optimal pricing problem; taking as given the paths of nominal labor compensation, labor productivity, and output, I determine the implied path of prices predicted by the model. Because prices are not a stationary series, I present my results in terms of the predicted path of the price/unit labor cost ratio, where the parameters characterizing such paths are chosen to maximize the fit with the data. I find that, while the evolution of prices relative to unit labor costs is quite different from what would be predicted by the flexible-price ‘benchmark ’ model, a simple model of nominal price rigidity delivers an extremely close approximation both of the price/unit labor cost ratio and of the inflation series, even under a very simple approach to the measurement of marginal costs. Moreover, the results are robust to modifications of this measure.

this paper was presented at Bank of Japan's Ninth International Conference, "The Role of Monetary Policy under Low Inflation: Deflationary Shocks and Their Policy Responses," held in Tokyo, July 3--4, 2000. I thank my discussants, Glenn Stevens and Job Swank, and Claes Berg, Ben Bernanke, Peter Bofinger, Guy Debelle, Stefan Gerlach, Charles Goodhart, Koichi Hamada, Dale Henderson, Takatoshi Ito, Bennett McCallum, Allan Meltzer, Edward Nelson, Christian Pfister, Georg Rich, John Rogers, Shigenori Shiratsuka, Christopher Sims, Frank Smets, Peter Tinsley, Michael Woodford, and participants of the NBER Summer Institute for useful discussions and comments; Annika Andreasson and Christina Lnnblad for editorial and secretarial assistance; and the Department of Economics and the International Finance Section at Princeton University for its hospitality during my visit 1999--2000. I am solely responsible for expressed views and any errors. I. Introduction For several decades, h

Abstract not found

This chapter examines the concept of inflation persistence in macroeconomic theory. It begins with a definition of persistence, emphasizing the difference between reduced-form and structural persistence. It then examines a number of empirical measures of reduced-form persistence, considering the possibility that persistence has changed over time. The chapter then examines the theoretical sources of persistence, distinguishing “intrinsic ” from “inherited” persistence, and deriving a number of analytical results on persistence. It summarizes the implications for persistence from the literatures on “stickyinformation” models, learning and so-called trend inflation models, providing some new results throughout.

In a simple dynamic macroeconomic model, it is shown that uncertainty about structural parameters does not necessarily lead to more cautious monetary policy, refining the accepted wisdom concerning the effects of parameter uncertainty on optimal policy. In particular, when there is uncertainty about the persistence of inflation, it may be optimal for the central bank to respond more aggressively to shocks than under certainty equivalence, since the central bank this way reduces uncertainty about the future development of inflation. Uncertainty about other parameters, in contrast, acts to dampen the policy response.

Recent work on the design of monetary policy reflects a general consensus on the appropriate objectives of monetary policy. As articulated by Svensson, “....there is considerable agreement among academics and central bankers that the appropriate loss function both involves stabilizing inflationaroundaninflation target and stabilizing the real economy, represented by the output

Current macroeconomic models provide appealing, succinct descriptions of business cycle dynamics in the United States and other countries, but less is known about the extent to which these models accurately replicate the economy’s long-run characteristics. In part, this reflects that economists have far fewer observations about long-run behavior, given the limited sample sizes available. But while less is known about the long-run characteristics of the economy, many macroeconomic models impose very strong assumptions about this behavior— that the long-run levels of inflation and the real interest rate are constant over time and perfectly known by all economic agents. This paper empirically

What accounts for the significant real effects of monetary policy shocks? And what accounts for the persistent and hump shaped responses of output and inflation in response to such shocks? These questions are investigated in a model that incorporates labor market search, habit persistence, sticky prices, and policy inertia. While habit persistence and price stickiness are important for the hump shaped output response and the long, drawn out inflation response, respectively, labor market frictions increase the output response and reduce the inflation response relative to an otherwise similar model based on a Walrasian labor market. Significantly, policy inertia itself is found to be the most important factor in accounting for the magnitude of the output effects of policy shocks in the model.

Empirical estimates of monetary policy rules suggest that the behavior of U.S. monetary policymakers changed during the past few decades. However, at the same time, statistical analyses of lagged representations of the economy, such as VARs, often have not rejected the null of structural stability. These two sets of empirical results appear to contradict the Lucas critique. This paper provides a reconciliation by showing that the apparent policy invariance of reduced forms is consistent with the magnitude of historical policy shifts and the relative insensitivity of the reduced forms of plausible forward-looking macroeconomic specifications to policy shifts.

Sticky-price models with rational expectations fail to capture the inertia in U.S. inflation. Models with backward-looking expectations capture current inflation behavior, but are unlikely to fit other monetary regimes. This paper seeks to overcome these problems with a nearrational model of expectations. In the model, agents make univariate forecasts of inflation: they use information on past inflation optimally, but they ignore other variables. The paper tests sticky-price models with near-rational expectations for two periods in U.S. history, the post-1960 period of persistent inflation and the period from 1879 to 1914, when inflation was not persistent. The models fit the data for both periods; in contrast, both rationalexpectations and backward-looking models fail for at least one period.