El economista argentino que escribió academicamente sobre ese tema es… El mingo Cavallo en su tesis doctoral de Harvard. :lol:
Hay una explicacion microeconomica y financiera a ese fenomeno. En parte por esto es que el mingo esta en el bando de los planes de estabilizacion cambiarios (como la convertibilidad).
Les transcribo el resumen. Disculpas pero esta solo en ingles.
STAGFLATIONARY EFFECTS OF
MONETARIST STABILIZATION POLICIES
Summary
by Domingo F. Cavallo
This study is devoted to analyzing the effects of changes in credit
conditions on the short-run aggregate supply of commodities. It is argued
that it is because of this kind of financial influence that monetarist
stabilization policies, when applied in economies with persistent inflation,
so often produce “stagflationary” results.
The phenomenon under analysis has been observed in some Latin
American countries, especially in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay
during the last three decades. The kind of inflation observed in these
countries’ economies is characterized by deeply-rooted expectations of
high and volatile rates of change of prices on the part of economic agents.
At every moment of time there are some nominal prices (typically factor
prices with some sort of institutional mechanism for their periodical adjustment)
that are being revised upwards with the intent of restoring
recurring losses in relative position. These adjustments, together with
the previous history of inflation, feed in turn inflationary expectations
for subsequent periods. These phenomena do not seem to be deterred significantly
by such forces as the behavior of other monetary or real
variables. The pattern seems to repeat itself over time for very long
periods. This kind of chronic economic problem is referred to in this
study as persistent inflation.
The experience of these countries shows that wage and price controls
help in reducing inflation for a while, but that their positive effects do
not endure in the medium and long run. On the other hand, monetary restrictions
which, according to a generally accepted opinion, would eventually
lower inflation rates in the long run, have strong perverse effects in the
short run, especially when relied upon as the basic instruments to fight
inflation unaccompanied by wage and price controls.
These perverse effects
consist of a fall in real output and sometimes an acceleration of inflation.
It is more or less evident that with the money supply growing, say, at 30
percent per year, there will be persistent inflation of around 25 percent
a year. It is also more or less clear that if some day the state of persistent
inflation is successfully eliminated, the monetary expansion
necessary to preserve price stability will have to average the expansion
of real GNP. But for an economy in a state of persistent inflation, neither
of these two propositions is useful. What is needed is a socially
permissible way of moving from one state to the other.
The perverse stagflationary effects observed in the initial stages
of stabilization plans based on monetary restrictions greatly reduce the
social acceptability of such plans. During the period in which real growth
is falling and inflation continues at its previous rate or even accelerates,
the government faces strong pressures against the restrictive policy and
must give it up before the (presumably positive) “second run” effects begin
to flourish. This study is devoted to identifying the economic mechanism
behind the effects of monetary restriction. It is hope that once the
mechanism through which the perverse effects of monetary restrictions
operate has been identified, it will be possible to design stabilization
plans with a higher probability of success.
The starting point of the theoretical explanation advanced is to
recognize that there exists a factor or production that, while partaking
of the nature of capital, is a variable factor even in the short run. This
factor of production is labeled “working capital” and it exists because
production takes time and the payments to the factors of production have
to be made in advance of the time at which output is sold. It is different
from fixed capital because it can be changed at any time without significant
lags. And it is also different from surplus or speculative inventories
because working capital is essential to the production process, while
those inventories constitute rather a way of allocating wealth but not an
essential factor of production.
When the firm faces a tightening of credit conditions, it may decide
of the economy. It is argued that in the short run, investment in working
capital is likely to be more sensitive to changes in monetary policy than
investment in fixed capital. It is then shown that, while the effect on
output and employment is always a fall whenever any kind of investment is
reduced, the impact on prices is an increase whenever the reduction occurs
in investment in working capital instead of investment in fixed capital.
In analyzing problems of inflation, the distinction between labor
and commodity markets becomes very important. While inflation is the
outward appearance of a disequilibrium in the commodity market, unemployment
means disequilibrium in the labor market. Both markets are naturally linked,
and it may even be true that a disequilibrium in the labor market
(in particular, unemployment) may finally eliminate the inflationary
pressure that exists in the commodity market by successive reduction in
money wages. But it is widely known that these forces work rather slowly,
even in stable economies.
It is emphasized in this study that whatever the kind of investment
that is affected by monetary policy, the impact on the labor market
always comes from the demand side. If firms decide to produce less in
order to reduce working capital they will demand less labor. If the final
demand of capital goods is reduced because fixed investment is curtailed,
there will also be a reduction in the demand for labor. But in relation
to the commodity market, a change of investment in working capital (which,
like labor, is a variable factor or production even in the short run)
brings about a decrease in the supply of commodities (consumer and capital
goods), while a change of investment in fixed capital (which is a fixed factor in the short run)
produces a decrease in demand for commodities
(capital goods). The difference lies in the fact that reducing investment
, in working capital means demanding less factors of production because it
has been decided that less final commodities will be supplied, while reducing
investment in fixed capital means a fall in demand for final
commodities. Of course, change in investment in fixed capital will also
affect supply, but this effect takes time because new investment can be
actually used in production only after a certain period of time. Therefore,
in the short run, even if in both cases total output will decrease,
the impact effect of a reduction in working capital will be an increase
in prices (acceleration of inflation) while a reduction in investment
in fixed capital will produce a decrease in prices (deceleration of inflation)
Thus articulated, the explanation of the “perverse” impact effect
of monetary restriction implies the existence of a specific financial influence
on the non-financial economy. Such influence should exist, at
least potentially, in every monetary economy, and not only in economies
with persistent inflation.
