The explanation came from two economists, Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps, who independently introduced the concept of the "Natural Rate of Unemployment" (NAIRU – Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). Their crucial insight was distinguishing between expected and unexpected inflation. They argued that there is no long-run trade-off. In the long run, the economy settles at the natural rate, where actual inflation equals expected inflation. Any attempt to push unemployment below the natural rate via expansionary monetary policy would only succeed if it surprised workers and firms. Once they adjust their expectations, they demand higher wages, eroding the initial stimulus and returning unemployment to the natural rate—but at a higher level of inflation.
The journey from the Phillips Curve to modern inflation targeting reveals a fundamental evolution in macroeconomic thought. The early Keynesian belief in a stable, exploitable trade-off gave way to the sobering realization that expectations, not just statistical relationships, are the primary drivers of inflation. The stagflation of the 1970s demonstrated the cost of ignoring expectations; the Volcker disinflation showed the painful necessity of building credibility; and the Great Moderation highlighted the benefits of an explicit, rules-based policy framework. Macroeconomia
The theoretical underpinning of this era was intuitive: when aggregate demand increased, the economy moved closer to full capacity. Firms, facing a tightening labor market, bid up wages to attract scarce workers. To maintain profit margins, these higher labor costs were passed on to consumers as higher prices. Conversely, during a recession, high unemployment reduced workers’ bargaining power, slowing wage growth and thus inflation. Throughout the 1960s, the Phillips Curve was accepted as a cornerstone of Keynesian economics. Policymakers believed they could "fine-tune" the economy, moving along the curve to achieve a politically optimal mix of, say, 4% unemployment and 2% inflation. This belief, however, contained a fatal flaw: it ignored the role of expectations. The explanation came from two economists, Milton Friedman