Why 2% inflation became the global target for central banks

Consider subscribing to my Substack for more such stories

The world’s most important economic number may also be one of its most arbitrary: 2%.

From Washington to Tokyo, central banks target roughly the same inflation rate of 2%, reflecting a global consensus that it’s the least bad option if not the best.

The modern 2% inflation target dates back to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in the late 1980s.

New Zealand first adopted the formal inflation target, keeping a range of 0% to 2%, chosen somewhat arbitrarily. At the time, it felt low enough to curb high inflation and high enough to avoid deflation.

But over time, the 2% became a global norm, not because it was perfect but because the cost of abandoning it was higher than the cost of keeping it…… in some (or most) cases coordination mattered.

Soon major central banks started adopting the target rate in some form and by 2009, more than two dozen countries had adopted inflation targets.

• The Bank of Canada in 1991 (revised in October 2016): Canada uses three preferred measures of core inflation available on monthly basis: CPI-trim, CPI-median and CPI-common
• The Bank of England in 2003
• The U.S. Federal Reserve in 2012: U.S. uses core PCE, which excludes volatile food and energy prices.
• The Bank of Japan(BoJ) in 2013: BoJ year-on-year rate of change in the consumer price index (CPI) i
• The European Central Bank (ECB) in 2021: ECB looks at Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) for maintaining 2% inflation target. As of Feb. 4 2026, several methodological changes will take effect in the HICP.

So why do so many economies use the same number?

The 2% inflation target is less about identical economies and more about credibility and coordination.

If together the major economies aim for 2%, then investors, businesses and workers would expect stable prices and those expectations will keep inflation stable.

Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken

– remarks by Lawrence H. Summers (the Harvard University economist and former Secretary of the Treasury, made at the Hutchins Center conference (2018))

Now another reason is because global markets are tightly linked to bonds, currencies and capital flows. If one country targeted a higher inflation rate and others targeted 2%, then there would be high currency volatility, resulting in capital flight in search for higher returns.

So having this one number might help reduce instability.

But……does 2% still make sense today?

Many have argued that 2% is an outdated and arbitrary number does not take into account economic realities such as debt burden, geopolitical risks (Iran conflict, supply chains), energy volatility, climate transition costs and aging populations.

For the switch to happen in current environment, co-ordinated efforts would be required. Besides, most countries work within a range of 2%, which accommodates fluctuations.

The Fed, for example, doesn’t solely target 2% inflation rate (which is the core PCE inflation rate) but also considers maximum employment .

The Fed’s new framework sets a goal for inflation that averages 2% over time, meaning that the FOMC allows periods of higher inflation to make up for periods of inflation below target. On employment, the Fed’s framework now emphasizes that full employment is a “broad-based and inclusive goal.”

Bottom line

That’s why no major central bank wants to move first!