The Central Bank's Dilemma
An economy is growing at 1.2% annually, unemployment is 7.4%, and inflation has run at 5.8% for six months, driven mainly by energy and food. The central bank's mandate is price stability with a secondary objective of supporting employment. Its policy rate is 3.0% while the public expects inflation near 5% next year. The government is running a deficit of 6% of GDP and has just announced a large infrastructure program. The finance ministry argues that raising rates now would 'strangle the recovery' and that inflation will fade on its own once energy prices normalize. The central bank governor must decide whether to raise the rate by 100 basis points, hold, or raise by 250 basis points.
1. Assess the real interest rate and the role of expectations. What does the gap between the policy rate and expected inflation imply?
Read the worked answer
The real policy rate is approximately nominal minus expected inflation: 3.0% − 5.0% = −2.0%. A negative real rate is accommodative: borrowing is cheap in real terms, which tends to sustain demand and can entrench inflation.
The expectation channel is central. If households and firms expect ~5% inflation, they set wages and prices accordingly, and those expectations become self-fulfilling. A central bank that holds at 3.0% while expectations sit at 5% signals that it will tolerate inflation, which raises expected inflation further and pushes the real rate even more negative. The gap is therefore not neutral - it is actively stimulative.
The finance ministry's claim that inflation is 'temporary' is plausible for a one-off energy shock, but it is weaker when inflation has persisted six months and expectations have de-anchored. The judgment hinges on whether the shock is genuinely one-off (in which case a modest, well-communicated tightening may suffice) or whether it is bleeding into wage- and price-setting (in which case delay is costly). The negative real rate is the strongest argument for moving.
2. Compare the three options, considering the interaction with fiscal policy and the risk of over-tightening. Recommend one and justify it.
Read the worked answer
Hold at 3.0%: avoids immediate pain but leaves a −2% real rate, validates inflation expectations, and forces a larger tightening later. It also accommodates a 6%-of-GDP deficit plus new infrastructure spending - fiscal and monetary policy would be pulling in the same expansionary direction, which is the worst combination when inflation is already 5.8%.
Raise 100 bp (to 4.0%): real rate moves to about −1.0%. Still accommodative but signals resolve. Risk: if the shock is truly energy-driven and fades, this could slow growth unnecessarily. Benefit: it is measured and preserves credibility.
Raise 250 bp (to 5.5%): real rate near +0.5%. Strong anti-inflation signal, but a sharp move risks a credit crunch, a spike in unemployment from 7.4%, and political conflict with the finance ministry. It may overshoot if the shock is transitory.
Recommendation: a 100 bp rise with clear forward guidance that further moves are data-dependent, conditioned on whether wage growth and expectations cool. This addresses the negative real rate and the credibility problem without overreacting to a possibly transitory shock. It also implicitly pushes back on the fiscal expansion: the central bank cannot offset a 6% deficit alone, and the governor should publicly note that monetary tightening is more painful when fiscal policy is pro-cyclical. The judgment is to act early and modestly rather than late and sharply.