Attacks Against BoE’s Bailey Over Pay Rises Miss Their Target

The Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey was slapped down by the Government, business groups, and trade unions last week for urging wage restraint as a check against ongoing inflation.

Rail, Maritime and Transport Union boss Mick Lynch accused him of “hypocrisy” given Bailey’s high salary. Downing Street retorted that the Prime Minister “wants people’s wages to increase”. The Governor’s economically-minded critics dismissed the idea of the Bank commenting on wage negotiations, pointing out that inflation is determined by the Bank’s policies, not wage-price spirals.

With inflation expected to rise to 7.25pc by April, it’s easy to sympathize with Bailey’s determination to keep inflation in check. But in calling for pay restraint, economists are right that Bailey was “guilty of putting the expectations-control cart before the monetary-control horse.

Bailey’s duty is to have the Bank stabilize inflation and convince workers that its 2pc target is credible.

It is this credibility that keeps people’s inflation expectations anchored and so pay rises in check. Asking workers to endure a meagre pay raise otherwise amounts to asking them to act against their perceived best interest, according to their expectations of inflation’s path. That’s a losing proposition for any Bank governor.

What’s key to remember here is that inflation is ultimately determined by the interaction of monetary conditions with output potential.

Urging economy-wide pay restraint, as with price or wage controls, at best postpones the reckoning, with slower inflation followed by rapid inflation. But the underlying inflationary pressures for wages and prices remain, with a range of shortages and surpluses the sorry result of ad hoc attempts to suppress prices.

Think about it. The typical case for government fiddling with demand at all is that people’s wages are sticky downwards. Evidence shows people tend to be unwilling to accept cuts to their pay in money terms. So, when a shock that reduces aggregate demand hits the economy, money wages don’t fall to adjust to this new level of aggregate spending. Businesses therefore resort to layoffs in light of weaker demand, causing unemployment.

In raising interest rates for the second time in three months, the Bank has signaled that it thought it was previously keeping aggregate demand too high, which would have kept inflation above target over the coming years.

So, this recent tightening of policy can also be thought of as a downwards demand shock. It stands to reason that if people’s pay rise demands are elevated higher than the Bank thinks consistent with its target, then these wage increases could cause higher unemployment too, as firms’ business costs are driven up.