Stagflation of the 1970s vs Volcker Disinflation
Stagflation of the 1970s and Volcker Disinflation are two Economic History & Events concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Stagflation of the 1970s was the combination of high inflation and high unemployment that broke the simple Phillips curve trade-off. The Volcker disinflation was the Federal Reserve's early-1980s campaign that broke double-digit inflation by accepting a deep recession to gain credibility. Here is how they compare side by side.
Through the 1970s the United States and other rich economies had rising prices and rising unemployment at the same time, something the standard model of the day said should not happen. The Phillips curve had been read as a menu: accept more inflation and you buy lower unemployment. Stagflation showed that the menu only exists when the inflation is a surprise, because a leftward shift in short-run aggregate supply pushes the price level up and output down together. Two forces were at work, adverse supply shocks from oil and food, and years of inflation that had taught workers and firms to expect more of it, so wage demands built the expected inflation in. The lasting lesson is that the trade-off is short run only, and the long-run Phillips curve is vertical at the natural rate of unemployment.
By the end of the 1970s American inflation had reached double digits and people expected it to stay high, so the expectation was built into wage and price setting. Under Paul Volcker the Federal Reserve tightened hard, targeting money growth and letting short-term interest rates climb toward 20 percent, and the economy fell into what was then the worst recession since the Second World War, with unemployment reaching nearly 11 percent. Inflation came down quickly, to roughly 4 percent within a few years, and it stayed down. In Phillips curve terms, the tightening first moved the economy down along the short-run curve, and only as expected inflation fell did that curve shift down so unemployment could return to its natural rate. The episode is the standard case study in the cost of buying credibility.
Stagflation and the Volcker Disinflation: The Problem and the Cure
| Stagflation of the Seventies | Volcker Disinflation | |
|---|---|---|
| What the term names | A decade of high inflation alongside high unemployment | The tight-money campaign that ended that inflation |
| Where the shock came from | Adverse supply shocks, chiefly oil, pushing short-run aggregate supply left | Deliberate monetary tightening by the central bank |
| What inflation did | Climbed into double digits | Fell back to low single digits |
| What unemployment did | Rose at the same time as inflation | Rose sharply first, then fell once inflation was down |
| Phillips curve reading | The short-run curve shifted out, so no stable menu remained | The curve shifted back in as expected inflation fell |
| Lesson usually drawn | Demand stimulus cannot repair a supply shock | Credibility lowers the output cost of disinflation |
Stagflation broke the trade-off economists thought they could rely on
Before that decade the short-run Phillips curve was often read as a menu. Accept a little more inflation and you buy a little less unemployment. The decade delivered both at once. Two large jumps in crude oil prices raised costs in every industry that burned fuel or shipped goods, shifting short-run aggregate supply to the left, and a leftward supply shift raises prices and cuts output together. Demand management has no clean answer to that. Stimulate and you add inflation on top of the price rise. Tighten and you deepen the fall in output. The misery index, the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, became popular in that period precisely because people wanted one number for a situation the old menu said could not occur. Illustrative arithmetic: inflation of 12 percent alongside unemployment of 7 percent gives a misery index of 19, a reading the earlier trade-off treated as off the map. The deeper problem was expectations. Once people came to expect high inflation they wrote it into wage agreements, so the short-run curve moved up and any given unemployment rate now came paired with higher inflation than before. That index is defined at /glossary/misery-index.
Ending it cost a recession, and the sacrifice ratio prices that cost
The cure was blunt. The central bank tightened hard, interest rates climbed to levels most borrowers had never seen, and the economy fell into a deep downturn with unemployment reaching double digits before inflation came down. Economists put a number on that exchange with the sacrifice ratio, the percentage of one year's real output given up for each percentage point of inflation removed. Illustrative arithmetic: if inflation falls by 5 percentage points and output runs a cumulative 10 percent below potential along the way, the sacrifice ratio is 10 divided by 5, which is 2. If the tightening is believed and expected inflation falls with the announcement rather than after the fact, the same 5 point reduction might cost 5 percent of output, a ratio of 1. That gap is the entire argument for central bank credibility, and it is why the episode is taught alongside expectations rather than as a piece of history on its own. The pairing also shows why a supply shock and a monetary tightening are different animals even though both cut output. One raises inflation while cutting output; the other cuts both. The curves are worked through at /macro/unemployment-inflation.
Frequently asked questions
What caused the stagflation of the seventies?
Chiefly adverse supply shocks, especially two sharp increases in the price of oil, which raised production costs across the economy and pushed short-run aggregate supply left. Loose monetary policy and rising inflation expectations then kept inflation elevated after the initial cost shock had passed.
How did the Volcker disinflation bring inflation down?
By restricting money growth and allowing interest rates to rise far enough to cut spending, which reduced output and employment until price and wage setting adjusted. The tightening was held in place through a severe recession, and that willingness to absorb the cost is what convinced people the central bank meant it.
Why can stimulus not fix stagflation?
Because stimulus works on demand and stagflation comes from supply. Adding demand to an economy whose costs have risen raises the price level further while doing little for output, so the policy trades a worse inflation problem for a small and temporary gain in employment.
Live Phillips Curve graph. Drag the curves, or open the full version.
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated