Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Assessing the impact of different nominal anchors on the credibility of stabilisation programmes

By Peter A. Prazmowski and José R. Sánchez-Fung

Abstract

The paper compares the impact of announcing exchange-rate-based versus money-based stabilisation programmes in a cross-section of countries. The analysis finds that the effect of announcing exchange-rate-based programmes is more credible, in terms of reducing inflation inertia, than the outcome associated with implementing money-based programmes. But the gap between the magnitudes of the impacts from implementing the different strategies has been falling since the 1970s.Inflation stabilisation; credibility; nominal anchors; IMF programmes

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1996). Exchange Rate Anchors, Credibility and Inertia: A Tale of Two Crises: Chile and Mexico,
  2. (2001). Exchange-Rate-Based Stabilization: A Critical Look at the Stylized Facts,
  3. (1976). Expectations and Exchange Rate Dynamics,
  4. (1998). Fiscal Discipline and the Choice of a Nominal Anchor in Stabilization,
  5. (2003). Globalization and its Discontents,
  6. (1994). Inflation Stabilization and Nominal Anchors,
  7. (1988). Inflation Stabilization: The Role of Incomes Policy and of Monetization,
  8. (1995). International Currency Experience: New Lessons and Lessons Relearned,
  9. (2007). Money-Based vs. Exchange-Rate-Based Stabilization: Is There Room for Political Opportunism?
  10. (1992). Testing for Credibility Effects,
  11. (1982). The End of Four Big Inflations,
  12. (1989). The Estimation of Long-Run Coefficients from Error Correction Models,
  13. (1998). Two Crises: Inflationary Inertia and Credibility,
  14. (1996). When is Stabilization Expansionary? Evidence from High Inflation,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.