Has the Phillips Curve Relationship Broken Down?

Monday, September 21, 2015
phillips curve
Thinkstock/MattZ90

By Michael Owyang, Assistant Vice President and Economist

Tight labor markets (i.e., a low unemployment rate) typically lead to upward pressure on wages and inflation. This relationship is embodied in the Phillips curve, which is generally plotted with unemployment on the x-axis and inflation on the y-axis with the negative relationship implying that the curve slopes downward.

Over the years, economists have discovered that the Phillips curve appears to shift. These shifts are typically attributed to changes in inflation expectations and were thought to have contributed to the period of high inflation and high unemployment in the late 1970s.

Recently, economists have questioned whether the Phillips curve relationship has broken down. As the unemployment rate has fallen during the recovery from the Great Recession, the inflation rate has stayed low, below even the Federal Reserve’s target. If a Phillips curve relationship still exists, the three most probable explanations for the aforementioned phenomenon are that:

  • The natural rate is lower than the current rate of unemployment (implying that there is not yet any upward price pressure)
  • The curve has shifted inward simultaneous with the movement along it
  • The curve has become flat

The figure below plots the Phillips curve over the period January 2010 through June 2015. It shows the apparent flatness of the Phillips curve. (A graph of these data over the period January 1985 through January 1994 provides an example of a steeper Phillips curve.)

The next figure shows the five-year, five-year-forward breakeven inflation rate1 along with the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of the natural rate of unemployment. This figure shows that five-year, five-year-forward inflation expectations have been falling on pace with the natural rate of unemployment.

As this expectation falls, the intercept for the Phillips curve shifts down and pulls the curve inward. This shift could be another potential cause of the seemingly flat Phillips curve. Starting in January 2015, inflation expectations began to creep up, but it is too soon to know yet if this increase will continue.

The second figure also shows that the CBO’s estimate of the natural rate of unemployment began to fall in 2014. The actual unemployment rate didn’t cross below the CBO’s rate until June 2015, which (assuming the CBO’s estimate of the natural rate is correct) means there is not yet upward price pressure. Any further reductions in the unemployment rate below the natural rate would translate to increased prices if the Phillips curve relationship still holds.

However, there is one caveat about this conclusion. The CBO’s estimation of the natural rate likely builds in a version of the Phillips curve relationship. Thus, their natural rate may move a way that will always return to the Phillips curve if used in external regressions. Any conclusions made using these data should be interpreted with caution, as they may be tautological.

These two alternate explanations suggest the current flat shape of the Phillips curve is only temporary. However, as both alternate explanations for a flat Phillips curve seem to be expiring, economic data over the next year could be very important to assess the continued validity of this macroeconomic relationship.

Notes and References

1 The five-year, five-year forward break-even inflation rate measures what the difference between nominal and real interest rates is expected to be over the five-year period starting in five years from the point measured.

Additional Resources

Posted In InflationLabor  |  Tagged michael owyangphillips curveinflationunemploymentcongressional budget office
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.


Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.

Categories