The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Theory of Ambiguity, Credibility, and Inflation under Discretion and Asymmetric Information
Open accessAbstract
This paper develops a positive theory of credibility, ambiguity, and inflation under discretion and asymmetric information. The monetary policymaker maximizes his own (politically motivated) objective function that is positively related to economic stimulation through monetary surprises and negatively related to monetary growth. The relative importance he assigns to each target shifts stochastically through time. His current preference trade-off is known to him but not to the public. When choosing the (state contingent) path of money growth for the present and the future, the policymaker compares the benefits from current stimulation with the costs associated with higher future inflation expectations. Current monetary growth conveys information to the public about future money growth because there is persistence in the policymaker's objectives. Although expectations are rational, information is imperfect because monetary control procedures are imprecise. As a result the public cannot correctly distinguish persistent changes of emphasis on different policy objectives from transitory monetary control errors. The public becomes aware of changes gradually by.observing past monetary growth. Credibility is defined in terms of the speed with which the public recognizes changes in the objectives of the policymaker. Credibility is lower the noisier monetary control and the more stable the objectives of the policymaker. Looser monetary control and a higher degree of time preference on the part of the policymaker induce him to produce higher and more variable monetary growth. When the policymaker is free to determine the accuracy of monetary control he does not always choose the most effective control available in spite of the fact that monetary surprises always have an expected value of zero. The reason is that ambiguous control procedures enable the policymaker to generate positive surprises when he cares more than on average about economic stimulation. He leaves the inevitable negative surprises for periods in which he cares more about inflation prevention. This result provides an explanation for the Fed's preference for ambiguity, recently documented by Goodfriend (1986). The policymaker is more likely to pick more ambiguous control procedures the more uncertain his objectives and the higher his time preference. The paper also provides a theoretical underpinning for the well documented crosscountry positive correlation between the level and the variability of inflation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The relationship between inflation and inflation uncertainty in the UK: 1885–1998
Fountas, S. (2001) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/s0165-1765(01)00522-5 · Cited by 108
Modelling central bank behaviour in Nigeria:A Markov-switching approach
Ayinde, T. O., Bankole, A. S., & Adeniyi, O. (2020) · Central Bank Review · doi:10.1016/j.cbrev.2020.11.001 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Cukierman, A., & Meltzer, A. H.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1986-09
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1099
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003451358
- Cited by
- 1,286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Theory of Ambiguity, Credibility, and Inflation under Discretion and Asymmetric Information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1912324
- The paper
- Cukierman, A., & Meltzer, A. H. (1986). A Theory of Ambiguity, Credibility, and Inflation under Discretion and Asymmetric Information. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912324
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.