Blog Post

Dial N for NAIRU, or not?

What’s at stake: The concept of the NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment) has recently divided the minds in the economic blogosphere. We review the most important contributions on its usefulness, its shortcomings, alternatives and we discuss why it is such a contested concept.

By: Date: May 22, 2017 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

NAIRU, a useless concept?

Matthew C Klein asks why a purely real variable (unemployment) should have any bearing on a purely nominal one (inflation). In 1926, Irving Fisher found a relationship between the level of unemployment and the rate of consumer price inflation in the US. In 1958, AW Phillips studied UK data from 1861-1957 and found a relationship between the jobless rate and the growth of nominal wages, although the relationship seems to have been an artifact of the gold standard given the vertical line he found in the postwar period:

Source: FT Alphaville

blogs review image

Some people (wrongly) interpreted Phillips’ data to mean that there was a straightforward trade-off between the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. Policymakers could just pick any spot they wanted on “the Phillips Curve”. This worked out poorly, but the reaction took the form of an equally dubious idea: the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, or NAIRU. In this view, the change in the inflation rate should be related to the distance between the actual jobless rate and some theoretical level.

If the unemployment rate were above this “neutral” level, the inflation rate would slow down and potentially turn into outright deflation. If the jobless rate were “too low”, however, consumer prices would rise at an accelerating rate. According to the wacky world of NAIRU, however, hyperinflation can coexist just fine with hyper-employment. Klein concludes that NAIRU isn’t just a useless concept, it’s a counterproductive one that encourages policymakers to focus on the jobless rate as a means to an end (price stability) even though there is zero connection between the two variables. The sooner NAIRU is buried and forgotten, the better.

Simon Wren Lewis disagrees, and notes that the NAIRU is one of those economic concepts that is essential in understanding the economy but is extremely difficult to measure. He cites reasons for this difficulty: first, unemployment is not perfectly measured (with people giving up looking for work who start looking again when the economy grows strongly), and may not capture the idea it is meant to represent, which is excess supply or demand in the labour market. Second, it looks only at the labour market, whereas inflation may also have something to do with excess demand in the goods market. Third, even if neither of these problems existed, the way unemployment interacts with inflation is still not clear.

So then why do we still care about the NAIRU?

Simon Wren Lewis continues, asking that if we really think there is no relationship between unemployment and inflation, why on earth are we not trying to get unemployment below 4%? He points out that while we should not be obsessed by the 1970s, we should not wipe them from our minds either. Policymakers then did in effect ditch the NAIRU, and we got uncomfortably high inflation. In the 1980s policy changed in the US and UK – unemployment increased, and inflation fell.

There is a relationship between inflation and unemployment, but it is just very difficult to pin down. For most macroeconomists, the concept of the NAIRU really just stands for that basic macroeconomic truth. He goes on by noting that a more subtle critique of the NAIRU would be to acknowledge that truth, but acknowledge that we should stop using unemployment as a guide to setting monetary policy, because the relationship is difficult to measure. Let’s just focus on the objective – inflation – and move rates according to what actually happens to inflation.

NAIRU in the heterodox world

Jo Michell enters the debate by noting that there is a deeper question of what the NAIRU actually means – what is a NAIRU? The simple definition is straightforward: it is the rate of unemployment at which inflation is stable. At first glance this appears all but identical to the ‘natural rate of unemployment’, a concept originating from Friedman’s monetarism and inherited by some New Keynesian models – in particular the ‘standard’ sticky-price DSGE model of Woodford and others. In this view, the economy has ‘natural rates’ of output and employment, beyond which any attempt by policymakers to increase demand becomes futile, leading only to ever-higher inflation.

Since there is a direct correspondence between stabilizing inflation and fixing output and employment at their ‘natural’ rates, policymakers should simply adjust interest rates to hit an inflation target. Economists refer to this as the ‘Divine Coincidence‘ – despite the fact it is essentially imposed on the models by assumption. More sophisticated New Keynesian formulations of the NAIRU are a good distance removed from the ‘natural rate’ theory – these models incorporate (at least short-run) involuntary unemployment and see inflation as driven by competing claims on output rather than the ‘too much nominal demand chasing too few goods’ story of the monetarists and simple DSGE models.

It is also the case that such a relationship is found in many heterodox models. Recent Post-Keynesian models also include NAIRU-like relationships. For example, Godley and Lavoie’s textbook includes a model in which workers and firms compete by attempting to impose money-wage and price increases respectively. The size of wage increases demanded by workers is a function of the employment rate relative to some ‘full employment’ level. That sounds a lot like a NAIRU – but that isn’t how Godley and Lavoie see it:

This highlights a key difference between Post-Keynesian and neoclassical approaches to the NAIRU: where Post-Keynesian models do include NAIRU-like relationships, the relevant employment level is endogenous, due to hysteresis effects for example. In other words, the NAIRU moves around and is influenced by demand-management policy. As such, the NAIRU is not an attractor for the unemployment rate as in many neoclassical models.

Simon Wren Lewis agrees with the point on hysteresis, which however just adds a complication to the NAIRU analysis, rather than overturn that analysis altogether. What hysteresis does is to make periods where unemployment is above the NAIRU extremely costly. It also means that periods of being slightly below the current NAIRU might be justified if they reduce the NAIRU itself.

So NAIRU, forever contested?

One of the sharpest reactions to the NAIRU piece by Simon Wren Lewis came from Brian Romanchuk, who stated that the NAIRU has to be bashed, smashed, and trashed. Simon Wren Lewis countered by stating that accepting the concept of the NAIRU does not mean you have to agree with their judgements. But if you want to argue that they could be doing something better, you need to use the language of macroeconomics. You can say, as many besides himself have done, that the NAIRU is either a lot lower than central bank estimates, or is currently so uncertain that these estimates should not influence policy. But just bashing it will get us nowhere.

Jo Michell wonders why the NAIRU is such a contested concept and cites Engelbert Stockhammer, who distinguishes between the New Keynesian NAIRU theory and the New Keynesian NAIRU story. Stockhammer argues (writing in 2007, just before the crisis) that the NAIRU has been used as the basis for an account of unemployment which blames inflexible labour markets, over-generous welfare states, job protection measures and strong unions. The policy prescriptions are then straightforward: labour markets should be deregulated and welfare states scaled back. Demand management should not be used to reduce unemployment. Jo Michell suspects that the NAIRU story is one reason why defence of the NAIRU theory generates such strong reactions.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Reading tea leaves from China’s two sessions: Large monetary and fiscal stimulus and still no growth guarantee

The announcement of a large stimulus without a growth target indicates that China’s recovery is far from complete.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 25, 2020
Read article Download PDF More by this author
 

Policy Contribution

European Parliament

The European Central Bank in the COVID-19 crisis: whatever it takes, within its mandate

To keep the euro-area economy afloat, the European Central Bank has put in place a large number of measures since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. This response has triggered fears of a future increase in inflation. However, the ECB's new measures and the resulting increase in the size of its balance sheet, even if it were to be permanent, should not restrict its ability to achieve its price-stability mandate, within its legal obligations.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament, Testimonies Date: May 20, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Rationale and limitations of SURE

This event will discuss SURE, a new European Union instrument for temporary ‘Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency'

Speakers: Roel Beetsma, Elena Carletti, Grégory Claeys and Gilles Mourre Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 15, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Depression, and not stagflation, could haunt China in 2020

This opinion piece was originally published in Asia Times and Medium China’s GDP in the first quarter of the year has surprised nobody but the devil is in the details. Local retail sales continued to fall in March (-16%), marginally better than during the peak of the Covid19 outbreak in January and February. The continuation […]

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 17, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

How COVID-19 is laying bare inequality

COVID-19 is laying bare socio-economic inequalities and could exacerbate them in the near future. The virus is a risk factor particularly for those at the lower end of the income distribution, who are vulnerable to the interaction of the shock with income, socio-economic and urban inequalities.

By: Enrico Bergamini Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 31, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The case for a derivative market programme

The implementation of a Derivative Market Programme could reaffirm the ECB’s credibility and strong commitment to price stability.

By: Sybrand Brekelmans and Francesco Papadia Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 18, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Inflation targets: revising the European Central Bank’s monetary framework

The ECB is looking to evaluate whether its definition of price stability is effective in helping anchor inflation expectations. We argue that the current definition does not make for a very good focal point. To become a focal point the ECB needs to do two things. Price stability should be defined as inflation at 2 percent,. Remove therefore the unnecessary ambiguity of "below but close to 2 percent". But that is not enough. Around that 2 percent, the ECB should say which levels of inflation it is prepared to tolerate. There need to be explicit bands defined around that 2 percent to provide a framework for economic agents to evaluate Central Bank performance. And as the ECB will have to operate under high levels fo uncertainty these bands need to be wider than tolerance of inflation between 1 and 3 percent, which is what many inflation targeting Central Banks have tolerated over the years.

By: Maria Demertzis and Nicola Viegi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 20, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The quality and quantity of work in the age of AI

At this event, the panelists will discuss the implications of Artificial Intelligence on the labour market and the future of work in general.

Speakers: Robert Atkinson, Anna Byhovskaya, Maria Demertzis, Carl Frey and Daniel Samaan Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 5, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

Manufacturing employment, international trade, and China

The decline in manufacturing employment is often seen as a major reason for rising inequality, social tensions, and the slump of entire communities. With the rise of national populists and protectionists in recent years, the issue has become even more prominent.

By: Uri Dadush and Abdelaziz Ait Ali Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 28, 2019
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Improving regulatory policy formulation and institutional resilience in Europe

Are large differences in the resilience of individual economies related to differences in the quality of country-level institutions that shape the absorption and response to these shocks? At this event we'll discuss the evolution of labour markets, and the role of institutional design and good process.

Speakers: Arup Banerji, Maria Demertzis, J. Scott Marcus, Céline Kauffmann and Rogier van den Brink Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 13, 2019
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

It’s hard to live in the city: Berlin’s rent freeze and the economics of rent control

A proposal in Berlin to ban increases in rent for the next five years sparked intense debate in Germany. Similar policies to the Mietendeckel are currently being discussed in London and NYC. All three proposals reflect and raise similar concerns – the increase in per-capita incomes is not keeping pace with increases in rents, but will a cap do more harm than good? We review recent views on the matter.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The breakdown of the covered interest rate parity condition

A textbook condition of international finance breaks down. Economic research identifies the interplay between divergent monetary policies and new financial regulation as the source of the puzzle, and generates concerns about unintended consequences for financing conditions and financial stability.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 1, 2019
Load more posts