Paskelbtas Nobelio premijos laureatas už ekonomiką
Šiandien sužinojome, kas laimėjo 2006 m. Nobelio prizą už ekonomiką. Kaip jau paskelbė naujienų agentūros ir jomis besiremianti spauda, laureatu tapo Kolumbijos universiteto profesorius Edmund’as Phelps’as už jo darbus apie infliacijos ir nedarbo ryšį, atliktus 7-ajame dešimtmetyje. Financial Times turi pakankamai aiškų bei sutrumpintą jo mąstymo aprašą. Beje, anot jų, E.Phelps’as yra tik antrasis aršus Keynes’o teorijomis paremtos makroekonomikos kritikas, gavęs Nobelio premiją.
Trumpai lietuviškai. Po karo brito Philips’o dėka ekonomistai, remdamiesi statistiniais duomenimis, atrado naują įrankį,- Philips’o kreivę,- rodančią ryšį tarp infliacijos ir nedarbo. Koreliacija tarp šių dviejų makroekonominių rodiklių yra negatyvi, tai yra esant aukštai infliacijai vyraujas mažas nedarbas ir atvirkščiai. Kita vertus, 8-ojo dešimtmečio pradžioje kreivė subliuško ir ryšys pradingo, kas parodė, jog ji negali būti priimta kaip taisyklė. E.Phelps’as ją kritikavo dar iki to, teigdamas, kad ji grįsta tik statistika ir neturi teoretinio pagrindo. Be to, jo nuomone, yra tiesiog per naivu tikėti, jog infliacija priklauso vien nuo nedarbo, mat ji taip pat priklauso nuo to, kokią ją įsivaizduojame mes. Phelps’o modelis tapo žinomas "Nuostatomis paremta Philips’o kreivė".
Žinoma, išsamesnis paaiškinimas reikalauja daugiau nei vieno ar kelių paragrafų…
Tekstas anglų kalba iš Financial Times svetainės, autorius Chris’as Giles’as:After the second world war, practical economists noticed that as unemployment fell in many advanced economies, inflation tended to rise and vice versa. This relationship between inflation and unemployment became known as the “Phillips curve” and seemed to conform with a crude interpretation of the teachings of John Maynard Keynes.
Politicians in the 1950s and 1960s used the relationship to pick an acceptable level of unemployment and inflation. They adjusted taxes, public expenditure and interest rates to pick a desirable spot on the supposed unemployment and inflation trade-off.
Ultimately the relationship was to break down in the early 1970s, but before the facts proved its downfall, it had come under theoretical attack from Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman in the late 1960s.
Prof Phelps was critical about the purely statistical nature of the Phillips curve, which was not grounded in economic theories of decisions made by people or companies. Nor was it related to any notion of stability in the labour market.
In challenging the naivety of policy based on a simple Phillips curve, Prof Phelps stressed that inflation depended on not only the levels of unemployment, but also how quickly companies and households expected prices and wages to rise.
His reasoning was that for any level of unemployment, if people and companies expected inflation to rise, they would demand higher wages and set prices higher, so the expectations would become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
He said that expectations of price rises tended to go up when unemployment was below an ‘”equilibrium rate”, which can differ between countries, depending on institutions and the strength of the labour market. If unemployment falls below this equilibrium level, inflation tends to rise (as in the standard Phillips curve model) but then expectations of inflation rise accordingly, resulting in no lower unemployment but higher inflation.
Prof Phelps’ model become known as the “expectations augmented Phillips curve” and the work has had profound consequences for economic policy.
The disastrous rise in inflation in the early 1970s was partly a result of policymakers not understanding that the equilibrium unemployment rate had risen as productivity growth fell and the oil crisis hit, so they kept loosening monetary and fiscal policy to lower unemployment below this level, with the consequence of ever higher inflation.
