A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) working paper examined lessons from over 100 separate inflation shocks on 56 countries since the 1970s. We share the major conclusions below, in the form of 7 facts. But if you are desperate for the key takeout, it’s this: Inflation will take longer to tame than most people think, but taming it doesn’t necessarily mean much higher unemployment and premature loosening of monetary policy could be dangerous.
Source: IMF
Here is a quote from the paper: “We document that only in 60 percent of the episodes was inflation brought back down (or “resolved”) within 5 years, and that even in these “successful” cases resolving inflation took, on average, over 3 years. Success rates were lower and resolution times longer for episodes induced by terms-of-trade shocks during the 1973—79 oil crises. Most unresolved episodes involved “premature celebrations”, where inflation declined initially, only to plateau at an elevated level or re-accelerate. Countries that resolved inflation had tighter monetary policy that was maintained more consistently over time, lower nominal wage growth, and less currency depreciation, compared to unresolved cases. Successful disinflations were associated with short-term output losses, but not with larger output, employment, or real wage losses over a 5-year horizon, potentially indicating the value of policy credibility and macroeconomic stability.”
What follows are the abridged conclusions from seven “stylised facts” that the IMF economists drew from their work. You can read the full paper here …
https://www.ft.com/content/a8b0e874-9454-45db-a0d4-ee94fab320fa#:~:text=a%20new%20IMF%20working%20paper%20published but see below our quick summaries of them.
- INFLATION IS PERSISTENT, ESPECIALLY AFTER TERMS-OF-TRADE SHOCKS.
It is easy to think that inflation shocks caused by an explosion in energy or food prices will dissipate once the fundamental cause (embargoes, wars, bad weather, etc.) fades. But inflation only returned to pre-shock levels after a year in 12 out of the 111 inflationary episodes that the IMF examined, and in most of those cases, it only happened because of a massive economic shock like the 2007-08 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) or the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. In other words, they were not examples of “immaculate disinflation”. In 47 episodes examined, inflation still hadn’t returned to normal after 5 years, and for the balance, the average time it took to bring inflation back to pre-shock levels was 3 years.
- MOST UNRESOLVED INFLATION EPISODES INVOLVED ‘PREMATURE CELEBRATIONS’
This argument seems particularly pertinent today. In almost all the stubborn inflation shock cases inflation dropped “materially” in the first 3 years, only to plateau at a high level or to reaccelerate. The IMF suggests that this was likely caused by premature monetary policy easing or governments loosening the purse strings too early.
- COUNTRIES THAT DID DEFEAT INFLATION HAD TIGHTER MONETARY POLICY
One of the IMF’s main findings was that successful resolution of inflation shocks tended to come when central banks raised interest rates to combat it, whatever its cause. On average, countries that resolved inflation raised their effective real short-term interest rate by about 1% compared to the pre-shock stance, while the real rate in countries that did not resolve inflation was 4.5% lower on average compared to pre-shock.
- COUNTRIES THAT RESOLVED INFLATION KEPT AT IT
The consequence of points 2 and 3 above is that successful inflation fights usually came when central banks had both raised interest rates higher and kept them high for longer (plus governments had restrictive fiscal policies).
- COUNTRIES THAT RESOLVED INFLATION SUFFERED LIMITED FOREIGN EXCHANGE DEPRECIATION
Countries that successfully beat down inflation (through higher-for-longer interest rates) were either able to maintain their currency pegs or limit their currency’s depreciation.
- COUNTRIES THAT RESOLVED INFLATION HAD LOWER NOMINAL WAGE GROWTH
As you’d expect, countries with tighter monetary and fiscal policy saw more moderate wage growth, while countries that didn’t saw accelerating wage growth. In real terms, countries that managed to defeat inflation only saw marginally less earnings growth destruction over time.
- COUNTRIES THAT BEAT INFLATION DIDN’T EXPERIENCE LOWER GROWTH OR HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT
This is the paper’s most interesting finding. You’d assume that aggressive monetary and/or fiscal policy tightening would impose a heavy economic toll. But instead:
“Over the 5-year horizon, we find no statistically significant difference in growth outcomes between countries that resolved inflation and those that did not. While inflation shocks reduce growth and increase unemployment regardless of whether they are resolved or not, the mean and median output declines are marginally larger for unresolved episodes over the medium-term.”
So what does this mean for today’s problems? It’s hard to say.
It is interesting that over half of the episodes the IMF examined were caused by the 1973-79 oil crisis: energy is along with food one of the most “systemic” components of inflation.
But the recent spurt of inflation was at least partly initially triggered by supply-chain bottlenecks caused by the pandemic, then stoked by a demand shock as people went on a post-pandemic shopping spree, and most recently by Russia invading Ukraine.
So history might be a bad guide to today’s situation. But some central bank officials are definitely going to read this as evidence of how they should go higher and stay restrictive for longer.
Disclaimer: Clime Asset Management Pty Limited | AFSL 221146 | ABN 72 098 420 770. The information provided in this post is intended for general use only. The information presented does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation and advisory needs of any particular person, nor does the information provided constitute investment advice. Under no circumstances should investments be based solely on the information contained therein. Please consider the relevant disclosure document/s before investing in one of our products. Investment in securities and other financial products involves risk. An investment in a financial product may have the potential for capital growth and income but may also carry the risk that the total return on the investment may be less than the amount contributed directly by the investor. Investors risk losing some or all of their capital invested. Past performance of financial products is not a reliable indicator of future performance or returns.
