|
by Lynn Elaine Browne,
Rebecca Hellerstein, and Jane
Sneddon Little
September/October 1998
In the 1980s, a new convention emerged in the economics
professionthat central banksprimary, even
sole, responsibility should be controlling consumer
price inflation. By the 1990s, this view was gaining
credibility in policy circles, and various countries
mandated that their central banks make inflation their
primary focus (generally with an escape clause in the
event of a severe economic shock). Here in the United
States, this orthodoxy never gained official status;
rather, the U.S. policy goal remains promoting stable
long-term growth using a variety of theoretical approaches.
The recent problems in East Asia, as well as earlier
difficulties in Japan, raise the question of whether
such a concentrated focus on inflation became tunnel
vision. Drawing on the crises in Japan and other Asian
countries, with reference to comparable episodes in
the United States, this article suggests that a preoccupation
with inflation may have lulled policymakers and investors
into ignoring useful signals from stock, real estate,
and currency markets and from emerging imbalances in
the real economy. Whether such imbalances would have
been better addressed by monetary policy, or by improved
disclosure, supervisory intervention, or tax policy,
a broader perspective might have identified problems
in Asia before they assumed such crippling proportions.
The article concludes by suggesting that policymakers
may want to look for signs of overheating emanating
from asset markets and from emerging imbalances in the
real economy, even when consumer prices are well behaved.
Signs that high levels of debt may be financing increasingly
optimistic investments warrant particular concern. The
article also stresses the vulnerabilities that newly
liberalized financial markets may introduce and the
importance of measures that encourage the private sector
to price risk more accurately and force it to bear the
costs of international financial crises more fully.
Overall, it advocates an eclectic approach to assessing
economic performance.
Full-text article 
|