Do Inflation Targeters Outperform Non-Targeters?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
updates the empirical evidence from an early study on inflation targeting by Dueker and Fischer (1996a) (denoted as D-F hereafter) that sought to provide an answer to the question: Do inflation targets impart an aversion to inflation and inflation variability among inflation-targeting countries above and beyond that displayed by non-inflationtargeting countries?D-F examined this question by matching three early adopters of inflation targets-New Zealand (which adopted an inflation target in 1990), Canada (1991), and the United Kingdom (1992)-with three neighboring countries that did not have formal inflation targets in the early 1990s-Australia, the United States, and Germany, respectively.All three inflation targeters achieved their announced targets ahead of schedule, perhaps in part because the 1990s saw a marked disinflation throughout the industrialized world.Numerous studies have re-examined the empirical effects of inflation targeting.Many subsequent studies have followed the formula laid out in D-F: Match each inflation-targeting S ince its inception in the early 1990s, inflation targeting has unleashed considerable debate on the merits of the new policy framework.Its introduction has raised numerous issues: the difficulty of evaluating central bank performance in achieving the target, the effect of inflation targeting on inflation expectations, the choice of inflation indicators, links with exchange rate policy, and the interaction between the central bank and the central government.Analysis of these issues was valuable not only to decisionmakers and analysts in the countries where inflation targets were already in use, but also to those countries contemplating such a policy.Revisiting the perceived merits of inflation targeting is especially timely now that Ben Bernanke, who has a clear academic record in favor of a quantitative inflation objective, is the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Contributions to the policy debate concerning inflation targeting have come in the form of theoretical analysis and empirical evidence.This note Ten years of empirical studies of inflation targeting have not uncovered clear evidence that monetary policy that incorporates formal targets imparts better inflation performance.The authors survey the literature and find that the "no difference" verdict concerning inflation targeting has been robust to a wide range of countries and methods of analysis, starting with a study by Dueker and Fischer (1996a).The authors present updated Markov-switching estimates from the original Dueker and Fischer (1996a) article and show that their early conclusions about inflation targeting among early adopters have not been overturned with an additional decade of data.These findings to date do not rule out the possibility, however, that formal inflation targets could prove pivotal if the global environment of disinflation were to reverse course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it