2000-2009年基于菲利普斯曲线的英国经济政策分析所面临的挑战:评论克里斯蒂亚诺

IF 1.2 2区 历史学 Q3 ECONOMICS History of Political Economy Pub Date : 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1215/00182702-11242717
Edward Nelson
{"title":"2000-2009年基于菲利普斯曲线的英国经济政策分析所面临的挑战:评论克里斯蒂亚诺","authors":"Edward Nelson","doi":"10.1215/00182702-11242717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n A series of research papers that appeared from 2000 to 2009 made the case that the UK authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s eschewed Phillips-curve-based analysis and that, consequently, the UK Great Inflation of the 1970s should not be regarded as resulting from policymakers’ pursuit of a perceived long-run inflation/unemployment trade-off. The position advanced in these 2000−2009 papers was that, instead, UK economic policy until 1979 subscribed to a nonmonetary perspective on inflation. This perspective implied UK authorities’ rejection of Phillips-curve-type trade-off analysis, but it also meant that they misjudged the importance of monetary policy in inflation control, thereby compounding the country's inflation problem. When this series of papers began to appear at the start of the 2000s, the trade-off-centered interpretation of the US Great Inflation was highly prevalent and was also being applied to the UK Great Inflation. By late in the decade, however, the case—as outlined in the 2000−2009 papers—against Phillips-curve-based accounts of historical policy conduct had gained notable acceptance among central bankers and academic researchers who discussed the UK Great Inflation. This article corrects erroneous statements that the challenge to Phillips-curve-based accounts of historical UK policymaker behavior only appeared in research starting in the 2010s.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Challenge in 2000–2009 to Phillips-Curve-Based Accounts of UK Economic Policy: Comment on Cristiano\",\"authors\":\"Edward Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/00182702-11242717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n A series of research papers that appeared from 2000 to 2009 made the case that the UK authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s eschewed Phillips-curve-based analysis and that, consequently, the UK Great Inflation of the 1970s should not be regarded as resulting from policymakers’ pursuit of a perceived long-run inflation/unemployment trade-off. The position advanced in these 2000−2009 papers was that, instead, UK economic policy until 1979 subscribed to a nonmonetary perspective on inflation. This perspective implied UK authorities’ rejection of Phillips-curve-type trade-off analysis, but it also meant that they misjudged the importance of monetary policy in inflation control, thereby compounding the country's inflation problem. When this series of papers began to appear at the start of the 2000s, the trade-off-centered interpretation of the US Great Inflation was highly prevalent and was also being applied to the UK Great Inflation. By late in the decade, however, the case—as outlined in the 2000−2009 papers—against Phillips-curve-based accounts of historical policy conduct had gained notable acceptance among central bankers and academic researchers who discussed the UK Great Inflation. This article corrects erroneous statements that the challenge to Phillips-curve-based accounts of historical UK policymaker behavior only appeared in research starting in the 2010s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Political Economy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Political Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-11242717\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-11242717","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2000 年至 2009 年间发表的一系列研究论文提出,20 世纪 50 年代、60 年代和 70 年代的英国当局回避了基于菲利普斯曲线的分析,因此,不应将 20 世纪 70 年代的英国大通胀视为决策者追求长期通胀/失业权衡的结果。2000-2009 年的这些论文所提出的立场是,1979 年之前的英国经济政策赞同从非货币角度看待通货膨胀。这种观点意味着英国当局拒绝接受菲利普斯曲线类型的权衡分析,但同时也意味着他们错误地估计了货币政策在通货膨胀控制中的重要性,从而加剧了英国的通货膨胀问题。当这一系列论文在 2000 年代初开始出现时,以权衡为中心对美国大通胀的解释非常盛行,并且也被应用于英国大通胀。然而,到了本世纪末,2000-2009 年论文中提出的反对以菲利普斯曲线为基础来解释历史政策行为的观点,在讨论英国大通胀的央行行长和学术研究人员中得到了广泛认可。本文纠正了一些错误的说法,即对基于菲利普斯曲线的英国决策者历史行为的质疑只是出现在 2010 年代开始的研究中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Challenge in 2000–2009 to Phillips-Curve-Based Accounts of UK Economic Policy: Comment on Cristiano
A series of research papers that appeared from 2000 to 2009 made the case that the UK authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s eschewed Phillips-curve-based analysis and that, consequently, the UK Great Inflation of the 1970s should not be regarded as resulting from policymakers’ pursuit of a perceived long-run inflation/unemployment trade-off. The position advanced in these 2000−2009 papers was that, instead, UK economic policy until 1979 subscribed to a nonmonetary perspective on inflation. This perspective implied UK authorities’ rejection of Phillips-curve-type trade-off analysis, but it also meant that they misjudged the importance of monetary policy in inflation control, thereby compounding the country's inflation problem. When this series of papers began to appear at the start of the 2000s, the trade-off-centered interpretation of the US Great Inflation was highly prevalent and was also being applied to the UK Great Inflation. By late in the decade, however, the case—as outlined in the 2000−2009 papers—against Phillips-curve-based accounts of historical policy conduct had gained notable acceptance among central bankers and academic researchers who discussed the UK Great Inflation. This article corrects erroneous statements that the challenge to Phillips-curve-based accounts of historical UK policymaker behavior only appeared in research starting in the 2010s.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Focusing on the history of economic thought and analysis, History of Political Economy has made significant contributions to the field and remains its foremost means of communication. In addition to book reviews, each issue contains original research on the development of economic thought, the historical background behind major figures in the history of economics, the interpretation of economic theories, and the methodologies available to historians of economic theory. All subscribers to History of Political Economy receive a hardbound annual supplement as part of their subscription.
期刊最新文献
Nineteenth-Century French Liberal Economists and Women's Work: The Dark Side of Industrialization Free Market: The History of an Idea by Jacob Soll Samuelson Friedman: The Battle over the Free Market by Nicholas Wapshott Adam Smith and Yan Fu: Western Economics in Chinese Perspective by Cheng-chung Lai Behavioral Consistency in Economics and Sociology: Thomas Schelling and Social Interactionists on Commitment, 1956–69
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1