Economics and Business Forum

Should the central bank aim for zero inflation?

Listen to this article

When we read commentaries in the media regarding the state of the economy, we get the impression that inflation is the number one problem. Would we all be happy if the central bank took the necessary steps to reduce inflation close to zero?

How much inflation should a central bank be willing to tolerate?

I.

Admittedly ,inflation imposes the following costs on people! Those with fixed incomes such as pensioners suffer most, such people are usually the elderly unable to find employment to supplement their pensions with wages.

II.

If you lend a thousand dollars to someone this year and inflation rages on by the time the borrower repays the loan it has lost a good deal of its purchasing power.

III.

Inflation brings about confusion and inconvenience in business transactions. It is difficult to budget for a reasonable time when you are not sure what you will be paying for the spares or raw materials you are going to buy.

IV.

Inflation aggravates income inequality; often the rich become richer while the poor become poorer.

Because of these reasons some economists feel that a central bank should adopt as primary policy reducing inflation at least next to zero, other economists go so far as to suggest that Parliament should enact a law that keeping prices low should be mandatory on government.

Incidentally, what they call inflation in developed countries would not worry most people in developing countries. An annual increase in prices of 3 percent is seen as highly inflationary. Here in Malawi inflation has for at least two years been in double digits.

Combating can be costly. What a bank does is to raise interest rates in order to squeeze credit and reduce the flow of money in the economy. But when it does so, firms stop borrowing working capital from the commercial banks; they stop expanding production. This trend could lead to a recession which in turn means growing unemployment.

Those who say that a central bank should aim at reducing inflation to zero or near zero point out that the costs of disinflation are temporary, while the benefits are more permanent. They exhort to accept short -term unemployment for the perceived long-term benefit.

These people cite an example from recent United States economic history. In early 1980s Paul Velcker, the chairman of the Federal Reserve system of the United States tightened monetary policy and reduced inflation from about 10 percent in 1980 to about 4 percent in 1983. Though in 1982 unemployment reached its highest level since the Great Depression of the 1930s the economy eventually recovered from the recession. The recession had cost President Jimmy Carter a second term as the Ronald Reagan adminitration over a healthy economy, a result of Paul Velcker’s monetary policy.

Those deposed to zero inflation policy feel that moderate inflation plus lower unemployment is better than zero inflation with high unemployment. Unemployed people suffer social and income trauma. Being unemployed they lose self-respect; being unemployed means lower incomes.

When people are unemployed, they lose the skills and experience they gained while they were employed. Some of them are too advanced in age to benefit from retraining for jobs that might occur later when the economy revives.

It is noteworthy that in developed countries both interest and inflation rates are very low to compare to what they are in developing countries. At the same time, we notice that in developed countries annual growth rates of the gross domestic product (GDP) seldom shot up to 3 percent, indeed some of these seldom go up to 1.5 percent either.

These rates appear satisfactory because demographic growth rates are low. In developing countries where population grew annually by two and a half to 3 percent the GDP has to be above five percent for the people to experience higher standards of living.

If a central bank’s monetary policy is to affect standards of living positively it must be part and parcel of an economic and social policy. There must be effective policies against excessive population growth rates.

Political leaders shy away from advocating slow population growth rates. I remember decades ago reading the autobiography of Sir Julian Huxley, a grandson of Thomas Huxley,a the friend and admirer of Charles Darwin. In that biography Sir Julian wrote that on his visit to Malawi he had appealed to Dr. H.K. Banda to launch a population control policy and that our first president rejected the suggestion.

The above discussion should remind us that the questions of prices such as these of statutory corporation and food are complex. These low food prices discourage farmers, too high prices hurt consumers. Any appeal one makes should be based on advice.

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. Inflation is bad and must be kept as low as possible. Best practice today in advanced economies is to target 2%. The question is how do central banks achieve that? The starting point will always be the good old MV=PQ where M is money supply, V is money velocity, P is prices and Q is aggregate demand (some argue number of transactions). We want to keep variations in P constant since a positive increase is inflationary and a decrease is deflationary. I am publishing a paper to argue Q is a function of capital stock, capacity rate and capacity utilisation. In the US, Europe and Japan the target is 2%
    It is today generally accepted by central banks that V is constant so from the bank point the main instrument is money supply M. Which M to use, narrow money (M0) or broad money (M3)? Best practice is narrow money. For me that makes sense because the product MV implies narrow money and velocity of exchange transactions. Velocity. Cheques do not circulate nor do deposits so why are they included in the calculation involving money velocity? You can argue that credit cards, cheques cannibalise the usage of coins ad notes but that is it, they interfere and reduce the use of narrow money so thei impact must be considered but as constraints. The central logic remains you want to control the circulation of narrow money. This discussion is relevant but is of secondary importance because the first question a central bank must answer is what instruments to use to control the inflation? Monetary aggregates anchors or inflation target anchor? Best practice today is inflation target anchor of 2% and let everything else vary around to support that.
    Imagine a sea -saw on one end you want to target 2% inflation. On the other side you monetary aggregates targets. Why a central bank will hold the sea-saw on the other side of monetary targets to achieve 2% on the other side is beyond me. Why not hold fix the seasaw at 2% and vary monetary aggregates to balance? Unfortunately that is the practice at RBM, the MPC from all the reports I analyse a) still use monetary aggregates targets instead of inflation targets b) still use broad money instead of narrow money c) and still use interest rates religiously. Countries central banks abandoned combating inflation using monetary aggregates in the 70s, here in Europe West Germany was the main proponent of that approach and with success but they used “narrow money”. Anyway the EU central bank has moved to inflation targets and Germany has abandoned monetary aggregate anchors all together.
    Use of high interest rates to combat inflation in Malawi is a misguided policy and must be abolished. The role of interest rates in Malawi must be reduced to stimulating investment and economic growth. When interest rates are low below 10% many enterprises will start or expand thereby creating jobs to eliminate poverty. Fears that low interest rates will drive consumption are unfounded because we can safely assume that impact on consumption (people borrowing) is less than 10% since majority live outside cash economy. In any case interest rates do not and I mean do not drive interest rates as much as Malawian economic thinking seems to suggest. Drop interest rates to below 5 % to stimulate economic boom. The only reason RBM keeps its main lending rate at 25% is not in the interest of the nation and its growth but to profiteer masquerading as an instrument for combating inflation. That school of thought must change. Today here in the UK we have interest rate at 0.5%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23968862

    Inflation rate is falling at 2.7%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24124705

    The use of high interest rate of 25% at RBM is holding hostage the development of this country for the benefit of RBM alone. We need step change to reform the financial sector starting with RBM. The power of low interest rate to stimulate economic growth does not just lie in the short run stimulating of business borrowing but in ensuring the long run survival of businesses and jobs!!!

Back to top button
Translate »