Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Businessweek Archives

Why Fed Policy Worked So Well

Economic Trends

Why Fed Policy Worked So Well

A study updates the Phillips curve

If Alan Greenspan & Co. deserve any credit for the long expansion of the 1990s, it is for not hitting the monetary brakes when unemployment sank to new lows in the second half of the decade. In so doing, the Federal Reserve ignored orthodox theory, which posited that allowing joblessness to fall below its so-called natural rate would inevitably result in accelerating inflation.

As it happens, inflation--already modest by the mid-1990s--continued to subside, even as unemployment dropped far below its then estimated 6% natural level. And unburdened by a restrictive monetary policy, the economy grew faster than anyone anticipated.

Why didn't inflation take off, as economists expected? Experts have offered many explanations, from the impact of global competition and the strong dollar to the Asian crisis and productivity gains from the new high-tech economy.

But the most intriguing may be one suggested by a recent study by George A. Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley and William Dickens and George Perry of the Brookings Institution. In the study, the three economists find that unemployment can be reduced below its normal natural rate without sparking a rise in inflation--if the reduction occurs in a climate of already moderate inflation.

To see why, you have to first understand natural rate theory. Most economists once bought the Phillips curve notion that accepting higher inflation would allow you to achieve lower unemployment. But economists Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps in the 1970s suggested that such gains don't last. Over the long run, they argued, employers and workers seek to maintain their real incomes by adding higher inflation to their wage bargains and prices, causing joblessness to rise again.

Thus, every economy presumably has a natural level of sustainable unemployment below which inflation tends to accelerate. What Akerlof, Dickens, and Perry find, however, is that this level declines when inflation is low and stable. At such times, companies and people tend to ignore past inflation and thus don't fully offset it in wages and prices. As a result, companies hire more people and sell more goods, which means less unemployment and more output.

As evidence, the researchers cite survey data from 1954 to 1999, which show that employees and employers are far more likely to incorporate inflationary expectations into wage and price hikes in periods of high inflation (over 4%) than in low-inflation periods (under 3%). They then use these data to estimate the trade-offs between unemployment and inflation over the postwar period.

The results suggest that the natural rate of unemployment is about 5 1/2% when core inflation is running over 6%. But when inflation is in a stable, moderate range of between 2% and 4%, unemployment can be safely kept as low as 4%. At that point, reducing inflation still further would raise unemployment, while pushing unemployment below 4% would boost inflation.

That, so it seems, is the lesson Greenspan's pragmatic Fed learned. When unemployment fell below 5 1/2% in the mid-1990s, core inflation was only 3% or so, and the Fed didn't panic. Its calm restraint allowed the New Economy to flower and millions of Americans to join the ranks of the employed.By Gene KoretzReturn to top

Return to top

Immigrants and Entrepreneurs

Newcomers crowd some natives out

Have the millions of immigrants who have entered the U.S. in recent decades affected the self-employment prospects of native-born Americans? Since studies show that immigrants are more likely to set up their own businesses than natives, you might think so. Yet a 1998 study by Robert Fairlie of the University of California at Santa Cruz and Bruce D. Meyer of Northwestern University found only a negligible impact on black self-employment.

Now the two economists have looked at the effect on the self-employment of whites and other non-black Americans and found it to be substantial. Using 1980 and 1990 census data, they estimate that every 100 self-employed immigrants have "displaced" from 35 to 85 self-employed native-born men and 9 to 19 self-employed native women.

On a positive note, the authors found no evidence that immigration hurts native reported self-employment earnings. And they note that job displacement appears to have taken the form of dissuading natives from starting new businesses rather than forcing them to shut down. That's because overall U.S. entrepreneurship grew rapidly. Despite growing numbers of self-employed immigrants, such businesses established by U.S-born citizens increased by over 1.8 million between 1980 and 1990.By Gene KoretzReturn to top

blog comments powered by Disqus