You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 11 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Inflation targeting is the cornerstone of the UK's monetary policy framework. Since 1992, when the UK adopted an explicit inflation target following its exit from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), the framework has evolved into one of the most studied and widely imitated approaches to central banking in the world. Where the previous two lessons examined the instruments of monetary policy — interest rates and quantitative easing — this lesson examines the framework that governs how those instruments are used. The framework matters as much as the tools: a poorly designed target, or a target the public does not believe, will undermine even the most technically competent policy.
Key Definition: Inflation targeting is a monetary policy framework in which the central bank is given a specific, publicly announced numerical target for inflation and uses its policy instruments (primarily interest rates) to achieve that target over a defined time horizon.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Specification reference | 4.2.4 — Monetary policy (the role and operation of monetary policy; the inflation target; the role of the Monetary Policy Committee; the importance of credibility and inflation expectations) |
| Where it is assessed | Paper 2 (The national and international economy) — data-response and a 25-mark essay; Paper 3 (synoptic) — inflation targeting combined with the 2008/2022 inflation episodes and supply-side content |
| AO1 Knowledge | Define inflation targeting, the 2% CPI symmetric target, the MPC, forward guidance, anchoring, the open-letter system; state the alternatives (NGDP, price-level, dual mandate) |
| AO2 Application | Apply the framework to a given inflation episode (e.g. above-target energy-driven inflation); judge whether a deviation triggers an open letter; identify whether a shock is demand- or supply-side |
| AO3 Analysis | Build chains: credible target → anchored expectations → moderate wage claims → self-fulfilling low inflation; or de-anchoring → wage-price spiral → entrenched inflation |
| AO4 Evaluation | Judge the framework against its narrowness (CPI only, ignores asset prices), its weakness against supply-side shocks, the credibility-flexibility trade-off, and the alternatives |
Synoptic signpost: Inflation targeting is where monetary instruments meet the expectations channel. The strongest answers connect the framework to the 2021-23 cost-push inflation episode (a supply-side shock the framework handles badly) and to the credibility of the institutions that surround it — exactly the institutional dimension Paper 3 rewards.
| Year | Development | Details |
|---|---|---|
| 1990 | New Zealand pioneers inflation targeting | First country to adopt an explicit CPI target (0-2%) |
| 1992 | UK adopts inflation targeting | After ERM exit ("Black Wednesday"), Chancellor Norman Lamont sets target of 1-4% RPIX |
| 1995 | Target refined | Target set at 2.5% RPIX or below |
| 1997 | Bank of England independence | Gordon Brown grants operational independence to the MPC; target remains 2.5% RPIX |
| 2003 | Switch to CPI | Target changed to 2% CPI (Consumer Prices Index), which excludes mortgage interest payments |
| Present | 2% CPI symmetric target | Deviations above and below 2% are treated equally seriously |
The shift from RPIX to CPI in 2003 was significant because CPI excludes housing costs (mortgage interest payments, council tax), making it a "purer" measure of consumer inflation and more internationally comparable. However, critics argue this means the target ignores a major component of the cost of living.
The instrument of inflation targeting is delegated to the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England, created when the Bank was granted operational independence in 1997. Understanding who sets policy, and how, is essential, because the design of the MPC is itself a key reason the framework is credible.
The MPC has nine members: the Governor, the three Deputy Governors, the Bank's Chief Economist, and four external members appointed by the Chancellor (typically respected academic or City economists). The external members are important: they bring outside expertise and reduce the risk of "groupthink" inside the Bank. Each member has one vote, and decisions are taken by simple majority, with the Governor holding the casting vote in the event of a tie. The Committee meets eight times a year to set the Bank Rate (and, when relevant, the scale of asset purchases).
A precise distinction examiners reward is between two kinds of independence:
This division is deliberate. By letting elected politicians choose the goal (a democratic decision about what inflation rate society wants) but handing the instrument to unelected technocrats, the framework keeps the level of the target democratically legitimate while insulating the month-to-month decisions from electoral pressure.
The theoretical case for an independent MPC rests on the time-inconsistency problem identified by Kydland and Prescott (1977) and Barro and Gordon (1983). A government that controls interest rates has a standing temptation: it can promise low inflation (so wage-setters moderate their claims) and then, once wages are set, engineer a surprise monetary expansion to boost output and employment — especially before an election. But wage-setters are rational; they anticipate this temptation, so they build higher inflation expectations into wage claims from the start. The result is an inflationary bias: higher average inflation with no gain in output. Handing rate-setting to an independent committee with a clear mandate removes the temptation, anchors expectations, and delivers lower inflation at no cost to employment. This is the single most important theoretical justification for central-bank independence, and it links the framework directly to the expectations material below.
Exam Tip: Distinguishing goal from instrument independence, and explaining the time-inconsistency rationale, lifts an answer from describing what the MPC is to analysing why the framework is designed this way. The phrase "inflationary bias" is a reliable AO3 marker.
The 2% CPI target is symmetric — the MPC treats inflation of 1% (below target) with the same concern as inflation of 3% (above target). This is important because it means the MPC will not only tighten policy to prevent inflation rising, but will also loosen policy to prevent inflation falling too far below target or turning into deflation.
The symmetry matters more than students often realise. An asymmetric "ceiling" target (keep inflation no higher than 2%) would create a deflationary bias: the central bank would tolerate inflation drifting to zero or below, risking a debt-deflation spiral in which falling prices raise the real value of debt, depress spending, and deepen recessions. By treating undershoots as seriously as overshoots, a symmetric target commits the MPC to loosen policy — cutting rates, deploying QE — whenever inflation falls too low, which is precisely what the framework called for after 2009. The diagram below shows why undershooting is a genuine problem and not a costless bonus: the target sits in a "comfort zone" with equal danger on either side.
If CPI inflation deviates by more than 1 percentage point from the 2% target (i.e., rises above 3% or falls below 1%), the Governor of the Bank of England must write an open letter to the Chancellor. The letter must explain:
Between 2007 and 2023, numerous open letters were written. Notably, Governor Mervyn King wrote several letters between 2007 and 2012 explaining above-target inflation driven by rising energy and commodity prices — factors largely outside the MPC's control.
Exam Tip: The open letter system enhances transparency and accountability. These are key evaluation points. Transparency means markets, businesses, and households can understand what the MPC is doing and why, which helps anchor expectations.
The open letter is only the most visible part of a deliberate communications architecture designed to make policy predictable, because predictability is what anchors expectations. The MPC also publishes:
The economic logic is that monetary policy works substantially through expectations, so a central bank that explains itself clearly effectively makes its policy more powerful: if markets and wage-setters understand and believe the MPC's reaction function, they adjust their own behaviour in the direction the MPC intends, often before the Bank Rate even moves. Transparency is therefore not merely good governance — it is itself a policy instrument.
Inflation expectations are at the heart of modern inflation targeting. The theory, developed by economists including Kydland and Prescott (1977) and Barro and Gordon (1983), holds that if people expect inflation to be close to the target, their behaviour will help make that expectation self-fulfilling.
The credibility of the inflation target — and of the MPC's commitment to achieving it — is essential for anchoring expectations. If expectations become de-anchored (people stop believing the central bank will deliver 2% inflation), a self-fulfilling inflationary or deflationary spiral can develop.
Example of de-anchoring risk: In 2022, when CPI inflation rose above 10%, there were concerns that persistently high inflation could shift long-term expectations upward. If workers began demanding wage increases of 8-10% to compensate for the cost of living, and firms passed these costs on in higher prices, a wage-price spiral could embed high inflation into the economy. The MPC raised interest rates aggressively (to 5.25%) partly to signal its determination to bring inflation back to target and prevent expectation de-anchoring.
| Expectations Anchored | Expectations De-Anchored |
|---|---|
| Workers accept moderate wage rises | Workers demand large cost-of-living increases |
| Firms make small, predictable price adjustments | Firms raise prices pre-emptively to protect margins |
| Long-term interest rates remain low | Long-term interest rates rise (inflation risk premium) |
| MPC can respond flexibly to shocks | MPC must tighten aggressively, risking recession |
The danger the MPC fears most is the wage-price spiral, a self-reinforcing loop in which de-anchored expectations make high inflation persistent even after the original shock has faded. The flow below traces the mechanism. The entire purpose of a credible target is to break the very first link — to keep expectations anchored so the loop never starts.
flowchart TD
A["Initial inflation shock (e.g. energy prices rise)"] --> B["Workers expect higher future inflation"]
B --> C["Workers demand larger nominal pay rises to protect real wages"]
C --> D["Firms face higher labour costs"]
D --> E["Firms raise prices to protect profit margins"]
E --> F["Actual inflation rises further"]
F --> B
G["Credible inflation target"] -.->|breaks the loop| B
This is also why the horizon of the target matters. The MPC aims to return inflation to 2% over a medium-term horizon (typically around two years), not instantly. A demand to hit 2% every month would force violent swings in interest rates in response to temporary shocks, destabilising output and employment for no lasting gain. The medium-term horizon gives the MPC discretion to "look through" one-off price-level shocks (such as a temporary VAT change or a single energy spike) provided they do not feed into expectations — but to act decisively if a shock threatens to become embedded. Judging which shocks to look through and which to fight is the central craft of inflation targeting.
Forward guidance is a communication tool in which the central bank provides information about its future policy intentions. It was introduced by the Bank of England under Governor Mark Carney in August 2013.
Carney announced that the MPC would not consider raising the Bank Rate from 0.5% at least until the unemployment rate had fallen to 7% — provided inflation expectations remained anchored and financial stability was not threatened. This was intended to reduce uncertainty, support confidence, and encourage borrowing and investment by assuring businesses and households that rates would remain low.
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Reduces uncertainty for businesses and consumers | Can be seen as a binding commitment, reducing MPC flexibility |
| Strengthens the expectations channel of monetary policy | If conditions change unexpectedly, the central bank may need to abandon its guidance, damaging credibility |
| Allows monetary policy to have an effect even at the zero lower bound (through expectations) | Unemployment fell to 7% within six months (by February 2014), much faster than expected, making the guidance seem poorly calibrated |
| Used successfully by the US Federal Reserve under Bernanke (2012) | Markets may not believe the guidance if it conflicts with their own assessment of the economy |
Exam Tip: Forward guidance is a relatively modern development and shows the examiner you are up to date with current monetary policy practice. Always evaluate it — the Carney 2013 example is a good case study because the unemployment threshold was reached much sooner than expected, testing the credibility of the approach.
Not all economists agree that inflation targeting is the best framework. Understanding the alternatives demonstrates breadth of knowledge.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 11 lessons in this course.