Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 51–65 | Cite as

The inflation-productivity trade-off revisited



Our aim in this paper is threefold. First, to test the robustness of the relation between total factor productivity growth and inflation to the specification of the estimating model; second, to test the stability of their relationship in the short run and in the long run, and third, to investigate the direction of causality between these two variables. To accomplish the first objective, we estimate a generalized Box–Cox cost function using data from the two-digit Standard Industrial Classification of manufacturing industries in Greece during the period 1964–1980. The results show that: (a) the acceleration of inflation from 1964–1972 to 1973–1980 reduced total factor productivity growth in a way that was both statistically significant and sizeable, and (b) even when the effect of inflation is separated from the effects of technical change and economies of scale, the choice of functional form is most crucial. With respect to the second objective, somewhat to our surprise, we find that the inflation-productivity trade-off prevails even in the long run. And, finally, regarding the third objective, it emerges that in the great majority of two-digit manufacturing industries the causality runs from inflation to productivity. On these grounds we conclude that for a precise estimation of the relationship under consideration it is imperative to sort out the three effects involved, do so by adopting the most general flexible functional form for the cost function, and run the appropriate stability and causality tests.


Inflation Productivity Scale economies Technical change Generalized Box-Cox cost function Stability Causality 

JEL Classifications

E31 O47 



We like to thank the editor and an anonymous referee for their constructive comments regarding the issue of causality between inflation and productivity.


  1. Amemiya T (1977) The maximum likelihood and the nonlinear three-stage-least-squares estimator in the general nonlinear simultaneous system. Econometrica 45:955–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelbaum E (1979) On the choice of functional forms. Int Econ Rev 20:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltagi BH, Griffin JM (1988) A general index of technical change. J Politic Econ 96(1):20–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro R (1991) Inflation and economic growth. Bank England Econ Bull 1–11Google Scholar
  5. Berndt ER, Khaled MS (1979) Parametric productivity measurement and choice among flexible functional forms. J Politic Econ 81:1220–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bitros GC, Panas EE (1998) Is there an inflation-productivity trade off? Some evidence from the manufacturing sector in Greece. Appl Econ 33:1961–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buck AJ, Fitzroy F (1988) Inflation and productivity growth in the Federal Republic of Germany. J Post Keynes Econ X(3):428–444Google Scholar
  8. Christensen LR, Jorgenson DW, Lau LJ (1975) Transcendental logarithmic utility functions. Am Econ Rev 65:367–383Google Scholar
  9. Christensen LR, Jorgenson DW, Lau LJ (1973) Transcendental logarithmic production frontiers. Rev Econ Stat 55:28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen LR, Jorgenson DW, Lau LJ (1971) Conjugate duality and the transcendental logarithmic production function. Econometrica 39:255–256Google Scholar
  11. Clark TE (1997) Cross-country evidence on long run growth and inflation. Econ Inquir xxxv:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cozier B, Selody J (1992) Inflation and macroeconomic performance: Some cross-country evidence. Working Paper 92-6, Bank of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. Denny M, Fuss M, Waverman L (1981) The measurement and interpretation of total factor productivity in regulated industries with an application to Canadian telecommunication. In: TG Cowing, RE Stevenson (eds). Productivity measurement in regulated industries. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Diewert WE (1974) Applications of duality theory. In: Intrilligator MD, Kendrick DA (eds). Frontiers of quantitative economics. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Diewert WE (1971) An application of the Shephard duality theorem: Generalized Leontief production function. J Politic Econ 70:481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enders W (1995) Applied econometric time series. J. Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer S (1993) The role of macroeconomic factors in growth. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 4565Google Scholar
  18. Gallant AR (1977) Three-stage-least-squares estimators for a system of simultaneous nonlinear implicit equations. J Economet 5:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granger CWJ (1988) Some recent developments in a concept of causality. J Economet 38:199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimes A (1991) The effects of inflation on growth: some international evidence. Weltwirtschftliches Archiv 127:631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanoch G (1975) The elasticity of scale and the shape of average costs. Am Econ Rev 65:492–497Google Scholar
  22. Hurwicz L (1971). On the problem of integrability of demand functions. In: Chipman J (eds). Preferences, utility and demand. Harcourt Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurwicz L, Uzawa H (1971). On the integrability of demand functions. In: Chipman J. (eds). Preferences, utilities and demand. Harcourt Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Kintis A (1986) Estimates of capital stock and capital utilisation rate. Centre of Economic Research, Athens University of Economics and Business, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  25. Levine R, Renelt D (1992) A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. Am Econ Rev 82: 942–963Google Scholar
  26. Motley B (1998) Growth and inflation: A cross-country study. Econ Rev 1, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, pp 15–28Google Scholar
  27. Smyth DJ (1995) The supply side effects of Inflation in the United States: Evidence from multifactor productivity. Appl Econ Lett 2:482–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spitzer A (1982) A primer on Box-Cox Estimation. Rev Econ Stati 64:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Varian A (1978) Microeconomic analysis. Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations