Can We Explain Inflation Persistence in a Way that Is Consistent with the Microevidence on Nominal Rigidity?

Huw Dixon and Engin Kara

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2010, vol. 42, issue 1, 151-170

Abstract: This paper adopts the impulse-response methodology to understand inflation persistence. It has often been argued that existing models of pricing fail to explain the persistence that we observe. We adopt a common general framework that allows for an explicit modeling of the distribution of contract lengths and for different types of price setting. We also evaluate how far the theories are consistent with recent evidence on price and wage rigidity. We find that allowing for a distribution of durations can take us a long way to solving the puzzle of inflation persistence, but not all the way yet. Copyright (c) 2010 The Ohio State University.

Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (40)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Journal Article: Can We Explain Inflation Persistence in a Way that Is Consistent with the Microevidence on Nominal Rigidity? (2010)
Working Paper: Can we explain inflation persistence in a way that is consistent with the micro-evidence on nominal rigidity? (2008)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mcb:jmoncb:v:42:y:2010:i:1:p:151-170

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking is currently edited by Robert deYoung, Paul Evans, Pok-Sang Lam and Kenneth D. West

More articles in Journal of Money, Credit and Banking from Blackwell Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing () and Christopher F. Baum ().