Is Theory Really Ahead of Measurement? Current Real Business Cycle Theories and Aggregate Labor Market Fluctuations / Lawrence J. Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum.
Material type:data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/752e6/752e6942bd3b7b7c72280cd405e4d458d14c8e82" alt="Text"
- Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
Item type | Home library | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Working Paper | Biblioteca Digital | Colección NBER | nber w2700 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Not For Loan |
Collection: Colección NBER Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
September 1988.
In the l93Os, Dunlop and Tarshis observed that the correlation between hours and wages is close to zero. This classic observation has become a litmus test by which macroeconomic models are judged. Existing real business cycle models fail this test dramatically. Based on this result, we argue that technology shocks cannot be the sole impulse driving post-war U.S. business cycles. We modify prototypical real business cycle models by allowing government spending shocks to influence labor market dynamics in a way suggested by Aschauer (1985), Barro (1981, 1987) and Kormendi (1983), This modification can, in principle, bring the models into closer conformity with the data. While the empirical performance of the models is significantly improved, they still fail to account for the Dunlop-Tarshis observation. Accounting for that observation will require further advances in model development. Consequently, we conclude that theory is behind, not ahead of, business cycle measurement.
Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
System requirements: Adobe [Acrobat] Reader required for PDF files.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Print version record
There are no comments on this title.