Even if prices are slow to change, this doesn’t necessarily expect that financial policy deserve to be offered to stimulate or slow-moving financial activity



Economic Policy Papers are based upon policy-oriented research developed by Minneapolis Fed staff and consultants. The files are an occasional series for a basic audience. The views expressed right here are those of the authors, not necessarily those of others in the Federal Reserve System.

You are watching: The sticky-price theory implies that

Executive Overview

Many kind of financial experts believe that prices are “sticky”—they adjust gradually. This stickiness, they imply, indicates that changesin the money supply have actually an impact on the actual economic climate, inducing transforms in investment, employment, output and consumption, an result that can be exploited by policymakers.

In this essay, we argue that price stickiness doesn’t necessarily generate an exploitable plan alternative. We explain a design in which money is neutral (that is, development or reduction in moneysupply doesn’t influence genuine economic activity) even in a conmessage of sluggish price adjustment.


Here are 2 venerable concerns in macrofinancial theory and policy analysis: Are prices sticky? Does it matter?

By “sticky” prices, we expect the observation that some sellers collection prices in nominal terms that perform not readjust easily in response to changes in the aggregate price level or to transforms in financial conditions even more mostly. Some macroeconomics as taught in the classroom and also provided in practice makes the presumption that nominal prices are sticky and also then proceeds to derive plan effects. In this essay, we desire to obstacle the principle that these policy implications are necessarily correct (also if prices are sticky).

Classical macrobusiness economics embodied the concept that money is neutral—that is, raising or decreasing the amount of money in an economy has actually no affect on real financial task such as investment, production, usage or hiring. If money is neutral, it is not clear what monetary plan have the right to perform.1

Some financial experts conflict classical neutrality. They argue that nominal prices are sticky, at least in the short run, and also that this has considerable aftermath for the real economic situation.2 The exact aftermath depend on details, but many models of this school of thought have actually this effect: If buyers have actually even more money and also sellers keep their prices the exact same, the previous will demand also more products and also services and the latter (by assumption) will certainly supply them. This geneprices a rise in investment, employment, output and usage.

The counterdiscussion is that placing even more cash in people’s hands is favor including a zero to eincredibly bill; that is, a one-dollar bill becomes a 10-dollar bill, a 10 becomes a 100 and so on. Some economic experts say that this ought not have a real affect, any more than altering the method temperature is measured from Fahrenheit to Celsius would—it’s simply units!

Many kind of financial experts point out, but, that sticky prices are what we observe empirically and also, indeed, there is an aspect of truth in their argument (see Klenow and Malin 2010 for a survey of empirical work). Then we can ask, why perform some sellers set prices in nominal terms that carry out not adjust in response to changes in financial conditions? This appears to fly in the challenge of elementary economic concept. Shouldn’t every seller have a distinctive target family member price, depending upon actual factors, so that when the accumulation price level boosts due to a boost in the money supply, eextremely seller necessarily adjusts his or her nominal price by the exact same amount?

In many type of renowned macro models, including those provided by the majority of policymachines, prices are sticky by assumption, in the sense that tbelow are either constraints on how often they can change, following Taylor (1980) or Calvo (1983), or tright here are real reresource prices to changing them, following Rotemberg (1982) or Mankiw (1985). It is true in principle that a price is incurred in changing a price—the so-referred to as menu cost—also if this price is just a item of chalk. A significant attribute of these models, though, is that at their core they call for a cost just for price alters, yet neglect all various other potential transactivity costs such as transforming one’s quantity, password, garments or mind. Or they simply impose by decree that a seller have the right to adjust price just at a few points in time determined by pure chance.

Stickiness as a result, not presumption

Here we describe a theory that generates price stickiness as an outcome, not an presumption, even if sellers have the right to adjust price whenever before they favor at no cost. But in solid comparison via theories assuming sticky prices, this concept means that money is neutral, so a main bank cannot engineer a boom or finish a slump ssuggest by printing currency. Our primary goal in describing this concept is not, but, simply to establish that prices are sticky or that money is neutral. Rather, our point is that the observation of slow-moving price adjustment does not logically indicate that money is nonneutral. Nor does it suggest that we need to focus predominately on macro models that incorpoprice menu expenses or related gadgets.3

In two recent records, Head et al. (2012) and also Liu et al. (2014), we propose simple models with the adhering to attributes. Due to frictions in crmodify, consisting of absence of commitment and imperfect security or document keeping, buyers sometimes must use money. (This component of the theory is based upon Lagos and Wright 2005.4) For the sector in which buyers and also sellers profession, we borrow the timeless model of frictional good industries occurred by Burdett and also Judd (1983). That version, based on search frictions, delivers price dispersion and has actually verified helpful in many other applications, consisting of the large literary works on labor sectors complying with Burdett and Mortensen (1998).5

To understand also the Burdett-Judd version, it helps to first review the earliest search models, wbelow buyers sampled sellers sequentially until they found one offering at a price listed below the highest possible price buyers were willing to pay. Burdett and Judd modify Diamond’s (1971) timeless search design, which, problematically, had actually no price dispersion.6 Burdett and Judd’s one (ostensibly minimal) readjust to the Diamond model is this: Rather than sampling prices one at a time, as Diamond had it, buyers in the Burdett-Judd model have a positive probcapability of sampling two or even more prices at the very same time. If all sellers collection the exact same price, a buyer is invarious to picking one over an additional and should use some tie-breaking preeminence to pick. This, of course, gives an individual seller a vast incentive to shave his or her price to gain the sale. In truth, Burdett and also Judd find that, in the model’s equilibrium, all sellers charge various prices: price dispersion.

When Burdett-Judd pricing is embedded right into a monetary version, sellers post prices in dollars, given that this is just how buyers are paying. At any type of date, tright here is a variety of posted prices for which sellers will certainly acquire the very same profit. While the model pins down the distribution of prices, it does not collection the price for any type of individual seller. Why not? A low price geneprices less profit per sale, however renders up for that low profit generation via sales volume, bereason a sale is more most likely from any kind of buyer who samples a low price.

If the money supply rises, the equilibrium price circulation shifts up, however this brand-new circulation deserve to overlap through the previous variety of prices. This means that some (but not all) sellers should change their prices. If an individual seller’s price drops exterior the array of prices that sellers will charge after the increase of money supply, it need to adjust; but if it is still in the range of new prices, it may not.

Now, respeak to the question posed earlier: Shouldn’t eincredibly seller have a target actual price and also, therefore, when the money supply boosts, shouldn’t eincredibly seller change his or her nominal price by the very same amount? The answer is no. Sellers carry out not have a distinct tarobtain price. The model’s equilibrium needs a distribution of prices, all of which yield the very same profit. If sellers perform not adjust their price as soon as money supply rises, they indeed earn less profit per unit, but aacquire they make it up on the volume. Hence, sellers have the right to adjust prices ingenerally in the challenge of continuous activities in economic problems, also though they are allowed to readjust whenever they prefer at no price.

But the crucial allude is this: Policy cannot exploit this price stickiness bereason the distribution of family member prices is pinned dvery own uniquely. The level of the money supply and also the aggregate price level are irrelevant—it is simply a selection of devices. This is classical neutrality.


Our allude is that money is not necessarily nonneutral just because prices are sticky. In addition, a calibrated version of the version deserve to complement quite well the empirical actions of price changes. These points are not commonly known (or embraced, by those that are mindful of them). Ball and also Mankiw (1994), to carry out a check out representative of a wide segment of the business economics profession, say: “Sticky prices provide the a lot of herbal explanation of financial nonneutrality since so many prices are, in truth, sticky.” They include, moreover, that “based on microeconomic proof, we think that sluggish price adjustment is the best explacountry for monetary nonneutrality,” and also “as a issue of logic, nominal stickiness calls for a cost of nominal adjustment.”7

We translate these clintends by Ball and Mankiw to contain three points related, respectively, to empirics, concept and also policy, and also our responses to the claims encapsulate our debate about monetary neutrality, or absence thereof.

Their initially claim is that price stickiness is a truth. We agree.

Their second insurance claim is that price stickiness suggests “as a issue of logic” the visibility of some technological constraints to price adjustment. The concept outlined above proves this wrong by displaying equilibria that match not just the broad observation of stickiness, yet the in-depth empirical findings, with no such constraints.

Their third insurance claim is that stickiness implies that money is not neutral and that this justifies specific policy prescriptions. This is aobtain proved wrong. The concept we’ve simply discussed is continuous with the relevant observations, however money is neutral. Hence, sticky prices execute not constitute definitive evidence that money is nonneutral or that particular plan references are warranted.


1 To state this notion via straightforward math: Suppose the economic situation starts in an equilibrium via money supply M, nominal price level P and also actual alplace (intake, investment, employment and also so on) X. Then adjust M to M′. Tright here is currently an equilibrium through price level P′, in which M′/P′=M/P and also X is unchanged. Hence, the change in M has actually no result on anypoint genuine.

2 Stated mathematically: When M alters to M′, it is not feasible for P to readjust to P′ at least in the brief run. Because of this M/P will not remain the same, and also that has actually actual consequences for X.

3 Our argument is somewhat analogous to that made by Robert Lucas in his renowned 1972 paper. He describes a model constant via the empirical monitoring that tbelow is a positive correlation between the aggregate price level (or money supply) and also output (or employment), but policyequipments in this model cannot systematically make use of the relationship: Increasing inflation by printing money at a faster price will not rise average output or employment. Similarly, we argue that one can design a model continuous through observations concerning nominal price adjustment, yet it is not feasible for policymachines to systematically manipulate this.

4 See Lagos et al. (2015) for a recent survey of the literary works on monetary economic concept.

5 See Mortensen and Pissarides (1999) for a survey of this literary works.

6 In Diamond’s version, firms short article prices, taken as given the prices of others, and also then buyers search as defined over. This version doesn’t geneprice price dispersion—problematic for a theory depending upon buyers and also sellers in search of one one more. This finding set off a wave of study to generate endogenous price dispersion.

7 Somewhat similarly, Golosov and also Lucas (2003) say that “food selection prices are really there: The fact that many kind of individual products prices reprimary resolved for weeks or months in the challenge of consistently transforming demand also and supply conditions testifies conclusively to the presence of a solved expense of repricing.” Our allude right here is not to pick on any type of particular individuals, however to administer some representative views in the profession.


Ball, L., and also N. Mankiw. 1994. “A Sticky-Price Manifesto.” Working Paper 4677. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Burdett, K., and also K. Judd. 1983. “Equilibrium Price Dispersion.” Econometrica 51, 955-69.

Burdett, K., and also D. Mortensen. 1998. “Wage Differentials, Employer Size, and Unemployment.” International Economic Review 39, 257-73.

Calvo, G. 1983. “Staggered Prices in a Utility-Maximizing Framejob-related.” Journal of Monetary Economics 12, 383-98.

Diamond, P. 1971. “A Model of Price Adjustment.” Journal of Economic Theory 2, 156-68.

Golosov, M., and R. Lucas. 2003. “Menu Costs and also Phillips Curves.” Working Paper 10187. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Head, A., L. Liu, G. Menzio and also R. Wright. 2012. “Sticky Prices: A New Monetarist Approach.” Journal of European Economic Association 10, 939-73.

Klecurrently, P., and also B. Malin. 2010. “Microfinancial Evidence on Price-Setting.” In Handbook of Monetary Economics, B. Friedmale and also M. Woodford, eds.

Lagos, R., G. Rocheteau and also R. Wappropriate. 2015. “Liquidity: A New Monetarist Perspective.” Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming.

Lagos, R., and R. Wright. 2005. “A Unified Framejob-related for Monetary Theory and Policy Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy 113, 463-84.

Liu, L., L. Wang and R. Wright. 2014. “Costly Credit and also Sticky Prices.” mimeo.

Lucas, R. 1972. “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money.” Journal of Economic Theory 4, 103-24.

Mankiw, N. 1985. “Small Menu Costs and also Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 100, 529-38.

Mortensen, D., and also C. Pissarides. 1999. “New Innovations in Models of Search in the Labor Market.” Handbook of Labor Economics, O. Ashenfelter and also D. Card, eds.

Rotemberg, J. 1982. “Sticky Prices in the USA.” Journal of Political Economy 90, 1187-1211.

See more: The Basic Structural Material Of The Body Consists Of ________.

Taylor, J. 1980. “Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts.” Journal of Political Economy 88, 1-23.