The paper analyzes the rise of the Latin American-based inertial inflation theory. Starting in the 1950s, various traditions in economics purported to explain the concept of “inflation inertia.” Contributions ranging from Celso Furtado and Mário Henrique Simonsen to James Tobin anticipated key aspects of what later became the inertial inflation hypothesis, building it into either mathematical or conceptual frameworks compatible with the then contemporaneous macroeconomic theory. In doing so, they bridged the analytical gap with the North American developments while maintaining the key features of the CEPAL (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) approach, such as distributional conflicts and local institutional details. These contributions eventually influenced the second moment of the monetarist–structuralist controversy that unraveled in the 1980s. The paper also highlights how later works by structuralist economists gradually stripped the inertial inflation approach of its previous substance and form, thereby unearthing tensions among Latin American structuralists that led to the eventual decline of this research program.

中文翻译：

---

第二代结构主义转型问题：惯性通胀假说的兴起

本文分析了以拉丁美洲为基础的惯性膨胀理论的兴起。从 1950 年代开始，经济学中的各种传统都声称可以解释“通货膨胀惯性”的概念。从 Celso Furtado 和 Mário Henrique Simonsen 到 James Tobin 的贡献，预测了后来成为惯性通货膨胀假说的关键方面，将其构建成与当时的宏观经济理论兼容的数学或概念框架。在这样做的过程中，他们弥合了与北美发展的分析差距，同时保持了 CEPAL（联合国拉丁美洲和加勒比经济委员会）方法的关键特征，例如分配冲突和地方机构细节。这些贡献最终影响了 1980 年代爆发的货币主义-结构主义争论的第二阶段。该论文还强调了结构主义经济学家后来的工作如何逐渐剥夺了惯性通货膨胀方法的先前实质和形式，从而揭示了拉丁美洲结构主义者之间的紧张关系，从而导致了该研究计划的最终衰落。