Inflation targeting is a monetary policy that focuses on changing monetary policy to achieve a predetermined yearly rate of inflation. Inflation targeting is founded on the assumption that preserving price stability, which is achieved by managing inflation, is the greatest way to generate long-term economic growth.
What exactly does inflation targeting imply?
- Inflation targeting is a monetary policy technique in which a central bank sets an inflation target and adjusts monetary policy to meet that aim.
- Inflation targeting is primarily concerned with maintaining price stability, but proponents feel it also aids economic growth and stability.
- Other conceivable central banking policy goals, such as exchange rate, unemployment, or national income targeting, might be contrasted with inflation targeting.
What is the significance of the inflation target?
The government has established a target of 2% inflation to keep inflation low and stable. This makes it easier for everyone to plan for the future.
When inflation is too high or fluctuates a lot, it’s difficult for businesses to set the correct prices and for customers to budget.
However, if inflation is too low, or even negative, some consumers may be hesitant to spend because they believe prices will decline. Although decreased prices appear to be a good thing, if everyone cut back on their purchasing, businesses may fail and individuals may lose their employment.
Is targeting inflation a good idea?
Inflation targeting appears to have been successful in boosting the transparency of monetary policymaking and lowering the rate of inflation in these nations by a large margin, with no negative effects for output.
As we near the conclusion of the twentieth century, the most pressing question facing central banks is what monetary policy strategy they should adopt. Inflation targeting is a monetary policy that has grown in popularity in recent years. It entails the public publication of medium-term numerical inflation targets and a commitment by the monetary authorities to meet these targets. In countries that have used inflation targeting, how well has it worked?
Mishkin and Posen argue that Germany is best described as a “hybrid” inflation targeter, with an explicit numerical inflation target and more aspects in common with an inflation targeting regime than a rigid implementation of a monetary targeting rule. Flexibility and transparency, two key aspects of a successful targeting regime, were present in Germany and are also vital elements in inflation targeting regimes in other nations.
New Zealand was the first country to formally implement inflation targeting in 1990, and it has been a huge success: the country, which was prone to high and volatile inflation before the inflation-targeting regime was implemented, has emerged as a low-inflation country with high rates of economic growth as a result of the experience. However, the New Zealand experience shows that strict adherence to a narrow inflation target range can result in policy instrument movements that are greater than the central bank would like, resulting in instances where credibility is harmed unnecessarily, even when underlying trend inflation is contained.
The effectiveness of inflation targeting in Canada (first implemented in 1991) demonstrates that an inflation-targeting framework with a less rigid institutional structure can also be extremely effective. Even though accountability is to the general people rather than to the government through specific contracts, inflation targeting has kept inflation low and stable in Canada. A fundamental component of Canada’s success with inflation targeting, like in Germany and New Zealand, has been a strong and growing commitment to transparency and public communication of monetary policy strategy. Because the floor of the goal range is regarded as seriously as the ceiling, the Bank of Canada has stressed that inflation targeting can help mitigate business cycle variations as part of this strategy.
In the aftermath of a foreign exchange crisis in 1992, the United Kingdom implemented inflation objectives in order to restore a nominal anchor and lock in previous disinflationary successes. Until May 1997, inflation targeting was carried out under strict political limitations, i.e., under a system in which the government, rather than the central bank, determined the monetary policy instruments. Despite this handicap, inflation targeting in the United Kingdom contributed to lower and more stable inflation rates. The Bank of England’s focus on transparency is credited with the effectiveness of inflation targeting in the United Kingdom. The Bank of England, particularly through its Inflation Report, was a pioneer in developing novel ways of communicating with the public. Many other central banks pursuing inflation targeting have modeled their communication efforts after the Bank of England’s.
Mishkin and Posen argue that the inflation-targeting countries’ design choices have tended to converge over time, implying that a consensus on best practice in the operation of an inflation-targeting regime is emerging. Transparency and flexibility, when well-balanced in operational design, appear to be a solid foundation for a monetary strategy aimed at maintaining price stability. Countries have been able to sustain low inflation rates thanks to inflation targeting, which they have not always been able to accomplish in the past. Furthermore, central banks have not been forced to relinquish their concerns about other economic outcomes such as the level of the currency rate or the rate of economic growth because of inflation targeting. Indeed, there is little indication that inflation targeting has had negative long-term repercussions on the real economy; rather, it appears to have improved the environment for economic growth. Mishkin and Posen stress, however, that inflation targeting is not a panacea: it does not allow governments to eliminate inflation from their systems without incurring costs, and anti-inflation credibility does not emerge immediately after an inflation target is adopted. Indeed, the data suggests that the only way for the central bank to establish trust is to earn it.
What does the term “inflation targeting” mean?
Inflation targeting is a monetary policy method in which a medium-term numerical inflation objective is publicly announced.
What is the European Central Bank’s inflation target?
The ECB’s Governing Council revealed its new monetary policy approach in July 2021. Having previously attempted to keep inflation under control, “It now deems price stability to be best maintained by aiming for a 2 percent inflation objective for the medium term, which is below, but close to, 2 percent. The new objective is “Symmetric,” which means that deviations above and below the aim are both unacceptable. However, in order to avoid negative deviations from becoming permanent, the ECB’s efforts may result in temporary periods of inflation moderately above 2%.
The ECB attempts to communicate with the general public in a clear and understandable manner. We used the August 2021 Bundesbank Online Panel Households (BOP-HH) to ask around 3,000 households about their inflation expectations for the next two to three years, just after the monetary policy changes were implemented, to see if they take the ECB’s strategy into account when forming beliefs about future price developments. Using a randomized control trial, we give households with information on the new and prior ECB strategies. The experiment is divided into three parts. To begin, all participants are informed that the plan up until July had been to keep annual inflation at a low level “over the medium term “below, but close to, 2%,” and that, under the revised strategy in force since July, the aim is inflation of 2% over the medium term. The fact that this new aim is symmetric, which means that both negative and positive deviations from it are considered equally undesirable, is also stated clearly.
Second, all participants are requested to believe that the ECB is still aiming for a rate of inflation of 2% “Over the medium term, the unemployment rate will be below, but close to, 2%.” The respondents are then asked to predict inflation rates for the next two to three years, which is the same time frame as the ECB’s projection horizon. Third, the participants are divided into groups at random and given different monetary policy and inflation assumptions to consider. In the August 2021 survey, a total of five subsamples were produced. The first group was told to assume that, in keeping with its new policy, the ECB aims for an annual inflation rate of 2% over the medium term. Respondents were reminded, as they had been before, that the inflation target is symmetric, meaning that both negative and positive deviations from the target are equally undesirable. The second group received the same wording as the first, but they also received an explicit version of the ECB’s official press release on the revised inflation target, which highlights the prospect of above-target inflation.
Figure 1 compares the old monetary policy strategy to the new monetary policy strategy in terms of medium-term inflation expectations. The bar graph depicts the average individual probabilities for the various outcomes “dark blue bars depict expectations when the “symmetrically 2 percent ” policy is supplemented with information about the possibility of a temporarily above-target inflation rate; dark red bars depict expectations when the “symmetrically 2 percent ” policy is supplemented with information about the possibility of a temporarily above-target inflation rate; and light red bars depict expectations when the “symmetrically 2 percent ” policy is supplemented with information about the possibility of a temporarily above-target inflation rate. We can notice a moderate movement in the probability mass towards the right by comparing the first two bars in each example dark blue with dark red. As a result of this shift, inflation expectations are slightly higher under the new strategy than they were under the old one. The distinctions between the dark blue and light red bars, on the other hand, are more noticeable.
Based on these findings, we can deduce that respondents initially did not distinguish between an inflation target of “below, but near to, 2 percent” and “symmetrically 2 percent.” The added explanation that the inflation rate may exceed the 2% objective under certain conditions caused a statistically significant movement to the right in inflation expectations. In particular, more respondents responded that they expect inflation to be greater than 2% but not higher than 3% in the medium future. Meanwhile, under the ECB’s new strategy, inflation rates of less than 1% and more than 3% were seen as significantly less likely than under the previous strategy and also than under the aspirational strategy “without mentioning a temporary overshoot, the “symmetrically 2 percent” inflation target is reintroduced.
What is South Africa’s inflation target?
Inflation in South Africa is expected to range between 3% and 6%, with a midpoint of 4.5 percent. Kganyago, on the other hand, believes that the country should set its aims lower, as 4.5 percent is not “ideal.”
“We have moved inflation expectations from the top of the 36 percent goal range to the 4.5 percent midpoint, and we have done it without using high interest rates.”
Where did the aim of 2% inflation come from?
Inflation targets became more important when New Zealand’s strategy took off “It’s all the rage,” stated economist Mervyn King in a 1997 speech. Canada was the third country to implement inflation targeting, and it set a target of 2% as well. Several other countries followed suit later on. Brash uses this as an example of how ideas propagate inside the little priesthood of central bankers, with a laugh: “We’d get together in Basel and other places and chat about it.”
What is the issue with targeting inflation?
Inflation targeting refers to the use of monetary policy by central banks to keep inflation near to a predetermined target (usually around 2 percent ).
Inflation targeting has been widely embraced by developed economies such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Eurozone since the mid-1990s. Inflation targets were established to help reduce inflation expectations and avoid the destabilizing periods of excessive inflation that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. However, following the 2008 recession, analysts have begun to question the significance of inflation targets, fearing that a firm commitment to low inflation will conflict with other, more important macroeconomic goals.
Inflation Targets
- UK. CPI = 2 percent +/-1 is the Bank of England’s inflation objective. They’re also responsible for looking at macroeconomic issues like output and unemployment.
- The Federal Reserve of the United States has two goals: to keep long-term inflation at 2% and to increase employment.
Benefits of Inflation Targets
- Expectations / Credibility People’s inflation expectations are likely to be lower if an independent central bank commits to keeping inflation at 2%. It is simpler to keep inflation low when inflation expectations are low. It becomes a self-reinforcing cycle: if individuals predict low inflation, they will not demand high pay; if businesses assume low inflation, they will be more cautious about raising prices. Smaller increases in interest rates might have a stronger impact when inflation expectations are low.
- Stay away from the boom and bust cycle. Many ‘boom and bust’ economic cycles have afflicted the UK economy. We went through a period of rapid inflation, which proved unsustainable and resulted in a recession. An inflation target forces monetary policy to be more disciplined and prevents it from getting overly slack – in the hopes of a “supply side miracle.” For example, due to significant growth in the late 1980s, inflation was permitted to creep upwards, but this resulted in the boom bursting and the recession of 1991/91. (Refer to Lawson Boom.)
- Inflationary Costs If inflation rises, it can result in a variety of economic costs, including uncertainty, which leads to fewer investment, a loss of international competitiveness, and a decrease in the value of savings. It avoids these costs and provides a foundation for long-term economic growth by keeping inflation near to the target. For further information, see Inflationary Costs.
- Clarity. The use of an inflation objective clarifies monetary policy. Alternatives have been tried, although with varying degrees of success. Monetarism, for example, proposed targeting the money supply in the early 1980s, but this indirect targeting of inflation proved limited since the link between the money supply and inflation was weaker than projected.
Problems with Inflation Targets
- Inflation may experience a momentary dip as a result of cost-push inflation. Due to rising oil prices, the UK experienced cost-push inflation of 5% just before the recession of 2009. Targeting 2% inflation would have necessitated higher interest rates, which would have resulted in slower development. Some economists believed that interest rates should have been cut sooner, and that the delay in relaxing monetary policy was due to inflation targets.
- To a degree, the United Kingdom and the United States are willing to accept transitory departures from the inflation objective. During 2009-2012, the Bank of England permitted inflation to exceed its objective because it believed the inflation was just temporary and the recession was more serious.
- The ECB, on the other hand, has shown a stronger inflexibility and inability to tolerate brief inflation blips. For example, despite sluggish growth, the ECB raised interest rates in 2011 due to concerns about inflation. After that, the ECB had to deal with deflationary forces.
2. Central banks begin to overlook more urgent issues. The European Central Bank (ECB) established monetary policy to keep inflation in the Eurozone on track. They looked to be downplaying the risks of rising unemployment by focusing on inflation. The ECB seems nonchalant about the Eurozone’s descent into a double-dip recession in 2011/12. They were preoccupied on the importance of low inflation rather than aiming to avoid a prolonged recession.
Inflation exceeding target can cost the economy in terms of uncertainty, loss of competitiveness, and menu prices, but these costs are arguably minor in comparison to the social and economic consequences of widespread unemployment. Although unemployment in Spain hit 25%, there was no monetary stimulus in the Eurozone because the ECB is concerned about inflation, which is currently at 2.6 percent – this is placing too much emphasis on low inflation during a recession.
Does targeting inflation make a difference?
Yes, as evidenced by panel evidence for inflation-targeting countries vs a control group of high-performing industrial countries that do not target inflation. Our findings suggest that inflation targeting aids countries in achieving lower inflation over time, having a smaller inflation response to oil price and exchange rate shocks, strengthening monetary policy independence, improving monetary policy efficiency, and achieving inflation outcomes closer to target levels. When inflation targeters have achieved disinflation and are able to keep their inflation targets fixed, some of the benefits of inflation targeting become more apparent. Despite these positive findings for inflation targeting, our evidence does not show that nations that adopt inflation targeting outperform our control group of extremely effective non-inflation targeters in terms of monetary policy performance. Inflation targeting, on the other hand, appears to assist all country groups in approaching the control group’s performance. Industrial-country inflation targeters outperform emerging-market inflation targeters, and their performance is comparable to that of industrial non-inflation targeting countries.
What is the impact of inflation targeting on the economy?
The ability of monetary policy to bring about price and financial stability, or to alleviate cyclical economic volatility, is often defined as its efficiency. Because mainstream macroeconomics holds that money is neutral in the long run, monetary policy cannot influence actual output, the capacity of such a policy to support long-term economic growth is frequently overlooked.
Recent studies, on the other hand, show that monetary policy can have an impact on economic growth.
Inflation targeting goals
Inflation targeting is a monetary policy that is conditional on the following:
- The central bank considers the exchange rate, monetary aggregates, and other macroeconomic data when determining monetary policy parameters.
- The public is constantly informed about monetary authorities’ decisions and the reasons for them.
- The public holds monetary authorities accountable for meeting inflation targets.
The traditional concept of inflation targeting excludes real output from the list of factors to be targeted. The impact of inflation targeting on economic growth, on the other hand, is frequently debated. A common argument against inflation targeting is that it may result in considerable volatility in real production or exchange values, as well as the maintenance of exorbitant interest rates, all of which could harm investment and, ultimately, economic growth.
Data analysis
Studies determined in the early part of the 2000s, little over ten years after inflation targeting was initially implemented (see inset), that this monetary system had no impact on long-term economic growth. These studies used a variety of approaches (such as difference-in-differences estimation or propensity score matching) and data from industrialized and emerging nations, but the conclusions were the same: inflation targeting does not stimulate the economy.
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand became the first bank in the world to adopt inflation targeting in its current form in February 1990. The first inflation target it set was a range of 0% to 2%. As Donald Brash (Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand from 1988 to 2002) recalls, inflation in New Zealand had reached 9% per year in March 1988, and everyone mocked the central bank’s estimates of inflation falling to 4% in the next two years. In 1991, however, the inflation rate decreased below 2%. Since 2012, the objective range has been 1-3 percent, with a baseline of 2%.
More recent studies that examine the long-term impacts of this monetary regime show that inflation targeting is beneficial to economic growth. Matching approaches were utilized by Galina Hale (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco) and Alexey Philippov (MSU) to assess the net effects of monetary policy in isolation from other factors. They studied two economies with identical macroeconomic characteristics, but only one of them used inflation targeting. The implementation of inflation targeting enhanced the growth rate of developing economies by 0.6 percentage points. Developed economies benefited much more, with an increase of around 1%.
Kelly Ayres (Southern Illinois University) and her co-authors used panel data to build a dynamic model and discovered
that while adopting an inflation targeting regime reduces output in the near term (which is understandable given that moving to this regime requires restrictive policies), the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term drawbacks. We were successful.
Although we only looked at developed economies, we found comparable results: there are considerable positive benefits, though with a three-year lag. Papers published recently
arrive at the same conclusion At the same time, it makes little difference which policy the central bank used before switching to inflation targeting: an exchange rate peg, money supply targeting, or no requirements at all. In all of the aforementioned scenarios, inflation targeting leads to greater growth rates. As a result, if this regime has a good impact on long-term growth, it is beneficial. Understanding the mechanism behind this impetus is critical in this circumstance.
Channels of influence
Inflation targeting’s ultimate goal is low and steady inflation. As a result, this regime may have an impact on economic growth in the following way: the transition to inflation targeting lowers inflation and its volatility, which produces a favorable climate for economic growth.
The outcomes of recent research
Economic research back this up
this hypothesis They show that low inflation has no detrimental consequences on economic growth at the very least. Simultaneously, rising costs (over a certain threshold) have a detrimental impact on growth. For industrialized economies, the crucial rate of increase is around 3-4 percent, while for underdeveloped economies it is a bit over 10%. The 4 percent goal set by the Bank of Russia does not appear to be excessively strict, according to studies.
indicate that as inflation rises, it becomes more erratic. As a result, maintaining inflation at 8-10 percent would be difficult, as it would be unstable.
Price instability and rapid price growth have a negative impact on savings and investment. When the inflation rate surpasses the crucial threshold, it produces a lot of uncertainty about future relative prices, which hurts the latter. Uncertainty irritates investors. As a result, people lose interest in investing. Furthermore, rising prices result in higher menu costs. (costs to firms resulting from changing their prices). When there is a lot of uncertainty, the risk premium rises, making loans more expensive. All of this works together to limit capital accumulation and, as a result, inhibit economic growth.
At the same time, as Russia’s history indicates, adopting inflation targeting will not eradicate other negative aspects in addition to preserving economic growth. Economic progress can be aided by sound monetary policy, but it should never be the primary driver. Real and human capital accumulation, technological progress, and a well-developed institutional environment cannot be replaced by monetary policy.