The Welfare Cost of Inflation in Oecd Countries

Abstract

The welfare cost of anticipated inflation is quantified in a matching model of money calibrated to 23 different OECD countries for several sample periods. In most economies, in the common period 1978–1998, a representative agent would give up only a fraction of 1% of consumption to avoid 10% inflation. The welfare cost of inflation varies across countries, from a fraction of 0.1% in Japan, to more than 2% in Australia, reaching 6% with bargaining. The model fits money demand data of several countries poorly, however. The fit generally improves with longer sample periods. The results are fairly robust to variations in choice of calibrated parameters and calibration targets.

Understanding the Distributional Impact of Long‐Run Inflation

“…To be precise, the optimal policy prescription is to run the so‐called Friedman rule, that is, to deflate at the common rate of time preference, but this policy is not implemented in practice. Notice that high welfare costs are found in some OECD economies; see Boel and Camera ().…”

Modeling Monetary Economies: An Equivalence Result

“…Notice also that, under the conjecture of price-taking behavior and linear labor disutility, the LW framework and the cashin-advance-model are mathematically equivalent also outside stationary equilibrium. 8 To see this, use the notation adopted in [6 Though linear disutility and price taking are often seen in studies based on the LW framework (e.g., [2,3,4,5,13]), quasilinear labor disutility and bargained prices have also been considered. Hence, we turn to study these cases.…”

On the Redistributive Effects of Inflation: An International Perspective

“…For Cyprus, money-market interest rate data are only available staring from 1996q1. 6 With a nominal asset the Friedman rule is not sustainable in the equilibrium considered, since π >π > β. P is the nominal price level, M is money supply, and Y is real output. 7 As explained in Lagos and Wright (2005), this relationship can be interpreted as money demand in the sense that the desired real balances M/P are proportional to Y, with a factor of proportionality L that depends on the opportunity cost of holding cash, i.…”