DOCSLIB.ORG

Okun's Law: Can It Still Be a Best Rule of Thumb? (Atime-Series Analysis)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OKUN’S LAW: CAN IT STILL BE A BEST RULE OF THUMB? (A TIME-SERIES ANALYSIS) A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Economics By Abdullah Alkraidees & Anees Ayaz 2014 SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS: OKUN’S LAW: CAN IT STILL BE A BEST RULE OF THUMB? (A TIME SERIES ANALYSIS) AUTHOR: Abdullah Alkraidees & Anees Ayaz DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2014 Economics Department Dr. Carsten Lange _________________________________________ Thesis Committee Chair Economics Dr. Bruce Brown _________________________________________ Economics Dr. Craig Kerr _________________________________________ Economics ABSTRACT Since 1962, policy makers and economists consider Okun’s law as a pillar of mainstream economics. Keeping this point into consideration, the main goal of our research project is to find out a relationship between the unemployment rate and the GDP growth rate as proposed by Okun (1960). The paper also focuses on the short-run and long-run relationship between these two variables. For this purpose a time series data from 2001 to 2013 is used, and is divided into two time periods, on quarterly basis, 2001:Q1-2007:Q4 and 2008:Q1-2013:Q4. Time-series econometric techniques are applied on each period to find an association between unemployment rate and GDP growth rate including Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test for stationary analysis, Engle-Granger test of co- integration and Johansen test of co-integration for co-integration analysis, vector auto- regressive model (VAR), and vector auto-regressive model (VECM) for finding inter- dependencies between variables, and finally estimating a difference version of Okun’s law regression equation. The results show a long-run association between the unemployment rate and the GDP growth rate in both periods i.e. 2001:Q1-2007:Q4 and 2008:Q1-2013Q4, but no contemporaneous impact on the unemployment rate by the GDP growth rate. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 3 1) What is Okun’s Law? .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1) Okun’s Law? ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2) Okun’s assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 3 1.3) Okun’s observation ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.4) The other versions of Okun’s law ............................................................................................... 6 2) Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................................. 10 1) Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 11 1.1) Model Specification ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.2) Time Series Econometric Concepts ....................................................................................... 12 2) Econometric Techniques ....................................................................................................... 14 2.1) Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test (ADF) .................................................................................... 15 2.2) Vector-Autoregressive Model (VAR) ...................................................................................... 17 2.3) Tests of Co-Integration and Error-Correction Model (ECM) ....................................... 20 3) Empirical Results and Discussions ...................................................................................... 21 iv 3.1) 2001:Q1 – 2007Q4 .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.2) 2008:Q1 – 2013:Q4 ......................................................................................................................... 34 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 46 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 49 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Unemployment In Levels 2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4 ...............................................22 Table 2 Unemployment Rate After First Difference 2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4 .................. 23 Table 3 GDP In Levels (2001:Q1-2007:Q4) .............................................................. 25 Table 4 GDP Growth After First Difference (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) ........................... 26 Table 5 Residual Unit Root Analysis (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) ...................................... 28 Table 6 Lag-Length Criteria (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) .................................................... 29 Table 7 Johansen Test of Co-Integration Test Results (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) ............ 30 Table 8 VECM Results (2001:Q1 – 2007:Q4) ........................................................... 32 Table 9 Wald Test Results (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) ....................................................... 33 Table 10 Okun's Law Regression Results (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) .................................. 34 Table 11 Unemployment Rate In Levels (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ................................... 35 Table 12 Unemployment Rate After First Difference (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ............... 36 Table 13 GDP Growth Rate In Levels (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ....................................... 38 Table 14 GDP Growth Rate After First Difference (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ................... 39 Table 15 Residual Unit Root Analysis (2008:Q1-2013:Q4) ........................................ 40 Table 16 Lag-Length Criteria Results 2008:Q1 – 2013:Q4......................................... 41 Table 17 Johansen Test of Co-Integration Test Results (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ........... 42 Table 18 VECM Results (2008:Q1 - 2013Q4) ............................................................ 44 Table 19 Wald Test Results (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ...................................................... 45 Table 20 Okun's Law Regression Results (2008:Q1–2013:Q4) .................................. 46 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Unemployment Rate In Levels (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) .................................... 22 Figure 2 Unemployment Rate After First Difference (2001:Q1- 2007:Q4) ................. 24 Figure 3 GDP Growth Rate In Levels (2001:Q1 - 20017Q4) ....................................... 24 Figure 4 GDP Growth After First Difference (2001:Q1 - 2007:Q4) ............................ 27 Figure 5 Unemployment Rate In Levels (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) .................................... 35 Figure 6 Unemployment Rate After First Difference (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4) ................ 37 Figure 7 GDP Growth Rate In Levels (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q4)........................................ 37 Figure 8 GDP Growth Rate After First Difference (2008:Q1 - 2013:Q13) .................. 39 vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction What are the main problems an economy could face? What are the main issues policy makers and economists do mostly care about? Those are three primary macroeconomic policy goals in general; economic growth – an increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services from one period to another, the inflation rate – a general increase in a country’s price level of goods and services measured as an index, and the unemployment rate – the proportion of people who are actively seeking for jobs (Blanchard, 2011). Arthur Melvin Okun (1962) was the first economist who developed an economic model where he empirically connected the variations in the unemployment rate to the changes in the state of the economy captured by changes in the GNP by using quarterly data from 1947:II to 1960:IV (Dimitrios, 2006). This correlation between the two important economic variables is famously known as Okun’s law, and since then it has been used as a benchmark by policy makers to measure the cost of higher unemployment and vice versa. The association between changes in the output and the unemployment rate is of crucial interest during times of economic recession and recovery; therefore
Recommended publications
  • Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies (ISSN: 2220-6140) Vol. 12, No. 1, Pp. 55-65, February 2020 Economic Growth and Unemp

    Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies (ISSN: 2220-6140) Vol. 12, No. 1, Pp. 55-65, February 2020 Economic Growth and Unemp

    Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies (ISSN: 2220-6140) Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 55-65, February 2020 Economic Growth and Unemployment Nexus: Okun’s Two-Version Case for Nigeria, South Africa and United States of America ONAKOYA, Adegbemi Babatunde1, SEYINGBO, Adedotun Victor2 1Department of Economics, Babcock University Ilishan-Remo, Nigeria 2Department of Economics, Tai Solarin University of Education, Ijagun, Nigeria [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: Okun’s law in its original form was predicated on the experience in the United States of America. Some methodological refinements have been added based on studies conducted in other climes with varied results. This research investigated the applicability of this law in Nigeria, South Africa and the United States of America. The study conducted a comparative analysis of three of the versions of the law. The research employed Ordinary Least Squares method having validated it’s appropriateness with Dickey-Fuller and Philips-Perron tests. The result also showed that the dynamic version of the law was applicable in the three nations while the difference version was applicable only in Nigeria. This study also found that the dynamic version was superior to the difference version. Deployment of employment creative employment schemes, labour market reform and economic restructuring are recommended in the Nigerian case. The policy makers on South Africa and USA are enjoined to pursue both labour and growth-inducing policies. Keywords: Okun's Law, GDP growth, Unemployment rate, Difference version, Dynamic version. 1. Introduction The postulation of Arthur Melvin Okun (1939-1980) is part of the supply-side economics school of macroeconomic thought which contends that economic growth can be effectively engendered by lowering of production barriers.
  • Research Proposal

    Research Proposal

    Effects of Contract Farming on Productivity and Income of Farmers in Production of Tea in Phu Tho Province, Vietnam Anh Tru Nguyen MSc (University of the Philippines Los Baños) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Newcastle Business School Faculty of Business and Law The University of Newcastle Australia February 2019 Statement of Originality I hereby certify that the work embodied in the thesis is my own work, conducted under normal supervision. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted, or is being examined, for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and any approved embargo. Anh Tru Nguyen Date: 19/02/2019 i Acknowledgement of Authorship I hereby certify that the work embodied in this thesis contains a published paper work of which I am a joint author. I have included as part of the thesis a written statement, endorsed by my supervisor, attesting to my contribution to the joint publication work. Anh Tru Nguyen Date: 19/02/2019 ii Publications This thesis comprises the following published article and conference papers. I warrant that I have obtained, where necessary, permission from the copyright owners to use any third party copyright material reproduced in the thesis, or to use any of my own published work in which the copyright is held by another party.
  • Decomposing the Misery Index: a Dynamic Approach

    Decomposing the Misery Index: a Dynamic Approach

    Cohen, Ivan K., Ferretti, Fabrizio, McIntosh, Bryan and Elliott, Caroline (2014) Decomposing the misery index: A dynamic approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, 2 (1). Downloaded from: http://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/4335/ The version presented here may differ from the published version or version of record. If you intend to cite from the work you are advised to consult the publisher's version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2014.991089 Research at York St John (RaY) is an institutional repository. It supports the principles of open access by making the research outputs of the University available in digital form. Copyright of the items stored in RaY reside with the authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full text items free of charge, and may download a copy for private study or non-commercial research. For further reuse terms, see licence terms governing individual outputs. Institutional Repository Policy Statement RaY Research at the University of York St John For more information please contact RaY at [email protected] Cohen et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2014), 2: 991089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2014.991089 GENERAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS | LETTER Decomposing the misery index: A dynamic approach Ivan K. Cohen1, Fabrizio Ferretti2,3* and Bryan McIntosh4 Received: 17 October 2014 Abstract: The misery index (the unweighted sum of unemployment and inflation Accepted: 19 November 2014 rates) was probably the first attempt to develop a single statistic to measure the level Published: 13 December 2014 of a population’s economic malaise. In this letter, we develop a dynamic approach to *Corresponding author, Fabrizio Ferretti, Department of Communication and decompose the misery index using two basic relations of modern macroeconomics: Economics, University of Modena and the expectations-augmented Phillips curve and Okun’s law.
  • The Johansen Tests for Cointegration

    The Johansen Tests for Cointegration

    The Johansen Tests for Cointegration Gerald P. Dwyer April 2015 Time series can be cointegrated in various ways, with details such as trends assuming some importance because asymptotic distributions depend on the presence or lack of such terms. I will focus on the simple case of one unit root in each of the variables with no constant terms or other deterministic terms. These notes are a quick summary of some results without derivations. Cointegration and Eigenvalues The Johansen test can be seen as a multivariate generalization of the augmented Dickey- Fuller test. The generalization is the examination of linear combinations of variables for unit roots. The Johansen test and estimation strategy { maximum likelihood { makes it possible to estimate all cointegrating vectors when there are more than two variables.1 If there are three variables each with unit roots, there are at most two cointegrating vectors. More generally, if there are n variables which all have unit roots, there are at most n − 1 cointegrating vectors. The Johansen test provides estimates of all cointegrating vectors. Just as for the Dickey-Fuller test, the existence of unit roots implies that standard asymptotic distributions do not apply. Slight digression for an assertion: If there are n variables and there are n cointegrating vectors, then the variables do not have unit roots. Why? Because the cointegrating vectors 1Results generally go through for quasi-maximum likelihood estimation. 1 can be written as scalar multiples of each of the variables alone, which implies
  • A Cointegrated VAR and Granger Causality Analysis F

    A Cointegrated VAR and Granger Causality Analysis F

    CBN Journal of Applied Statistics Vol. 2 No.2 15 Foreign Private Investment and Economic Growth in Nigeria: A Cointegrated VAR and Granger causality analysis F. Z. Abdullahi1, S. Ladan1 and Haruna R. Bakari2 This research uses a cointegration VAR model to study the contemporaneous long-run dynamics of the impact of Foreign Private Investment (FPI), Interest Rate (INR) and Inflation rate (IFR) on Growth Domestic Products (GDP) in Nigeria for the period January 1970 to December 2009. The Unit Root Test suggests that all the variables are integrated of order 1. The VAR model was appropriately identified using AIC information criteria and the VECM model has exactly one cointegration relation. The study further investigates the causal relationship using the Granger causality analysis of VECM which indicates a uni-directional causality relationship between GDP and FDI at 5% which is in line with other studies. The result of Granger causality analysis also shows that some of the variables are Ganger causal of one another; the null hypothesis of non-Granger causality is rejected at 5% level of significance for these variables. Keywords: Cointegration, VAR, Granger Causality, FPI, Economic Growth JEL Classification: G32, G24 1.0 Introduction The use of Vector Autoregressive Models (VAR) and Vector Error Correction Models (VECM) for analyzing dynamic relationships among financial variables has become common in the literature, Granger (1981), Engle and Granger (1987), MacDonald and Power (1995) and Barnhill, et al. (2000). The popularity of these models has been associated with the realization that relationships among financial variables are so complex that traditional time-series models have failed to fully capture.
  • 2. Trade, Jobs and Politics

    2. Trade, Jobs and Politics

    GREA1918 • FOREIGN POLICYT ASSOCIATION DECISIONS EDITION 2017 2. Trade, jobs and politics Acronyms and abbreviations Graham-Schumer bill: A 2005–06 bill, proposed by BLS—Bureau of Labor Statistics Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Lindsey EPI—Economic Policy Institute O. Graham (R-SC). It called for the imposition of tariffs GDP—Gross domestic product on Chinese products as a response to Chinese currency IMF—International Monetary Fund manipulation. The bill was abandoned before it could NAFTA—North American Free Trade Agreement be put to a vote, following pressure from then-President PNTR—Permanent Normal Trade Relations George W. Bush. PPP—Purchasing power parity TAA—Trade Adjustment Assistance Program Gross Domestic Product: The monetary value of all TPP—Trans-Pacific Partnership goods and services produced in a country in a certain WTO—World Trade Organization period of time. International Monetary Fund (IMF): An institution in Glossary the United Nations system. The IMF was established in Balance of trade: The difference between a country’s 1945 in the wake of the Great Depression and the Sec- imports and its exports. ond World War, and tasked with ensuring the stability of the international monetary system. Today, this includes Brexit: A term for the UK’s referendum on EU mem- regulating the system of exchange rates and internation- bership, held on June 23, 2016. The British public voted al payments, as well as relevant macroeconomic and 52% to 48% to leave the union. The UK will remain in financial sector issues. the union until it invokes Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, after which point the terms of Britain’s exit must Joseph Stiglitz: The recipient of the Nobel Prize in be agreed upon within a period of two years.
  • Measuring Welfare an Alternative to GDP

    Measuring Welfare an Alternative to GDP

    STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS Department of Economics 5350 Thesis in Economics Supervisor: Kelly Ragan Measuring Welfare An Alternative to GDP Birgit Altmann* May 15, 2013 Abstract: GDP per capita is generally used to compare welfare across countries and time. However, it faces significant limitations in serving as an appropriate welfare measure. Amongst others, GDP does not account for the distribution of wealth and omits important well-being determinants such as quantity and quality of life. In previous literature a consumption-equivalent model has been developed as an alternative welfare measure containing the factors life expectancy, consumption, leisure and inequality. The model is enhanced in this paper by incorporating the additional factors health and corruption. With this approach, living standards are compared across a broad set of countries both in levels and across time. The results show that for a significant proportion of countries this alternative welfare measurement differs substantially from the traditional GDP evaluation. For instance, life expectancy raises well-being in certain regions such as Western Europe, but considerably reduces welfare in Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. In Latin America, inequality within countries is a crucial factor, whereas corruption is most detrimental in Africa. Welfare growth tends to be higher than income growth in the sample due to improvements in longevity, corruption and leisure time. Keywords: Welfare, well-being, living standards, alternative welfare measurement, GDP, comparative country studies JEL classification: D60, D63, I31, 057 Date of presentation: May 24, 2013 Examiner: Juanna Joensen Discussant: Carl Johan von Seth *[email protected] Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Kelly Ragan for her valuable advice and support throughout the entire course of writing this thesis.
  • Output and Unemployment Dynamics∗

    Output and Unemployment Dynamics∗

    Output and Unemployment Dynamics Mary C. Daly John G. Fernald Òscar Jordà Fernanda Nechio Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco March 30, 2015 Abstract The strong and systematic comovement of unemployment and output is a defining feature of business cycles. We derive and implement a new growth-accounting decomposition of this "Okun relationship" that quantifies key margins of adjustment used by households and firms. The rela- tionship has been surprisingly stable over time and over the business cycle– despite considerable changes in underlying economic relationships. When we condition on different shocks, we can explain the patterns we find. Specifically, though the time path of output and unemployment varies considerably depending on the shock, the eventual implications for unconditional comove- ment turns out to be fairly similar. Regardless of the shock, hours worked typically falls about two percent when the unemployment rate rises by a percentage point– more than typically allowed by the structure of recent macro models. A technology shock leads to a larger decline in hours than a demand shock, but the output-unemployment relationship is nevertheless stable because technology shocks induce positive and offsetting comovement of labor productivity and unemploy- ment. Finally, the shift from procyclical to countercyclical labor productivity reflects two factors during the Great Moderation period: first, technology shocks appear relatively more important; second, factor utilization is less closely associated with unemployment fluctuations,consistent with increasing flexibility of the economy. JEL classification codes: E23, E24, E32, J20 Keywords: growth accounting, output and employment fluctuations, cyclical productivity, Okun’sLaw We thank Valerie Ramey and participants at the SED 2013, 2013 NBER Summer Institute, the 2014 European Economic Association meetings, and several academic institutions for helpful comments on this paper.
  • Testing Linear Restrictions on Cointegration Vectors: Sizes and Powers of Wald Tests in Finite Samples

    Testing Linear Restrictions on Cointegration Vectors: Sizes and Powers of Wald Tests in Finite Samples

    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Haug, Alfred A. Working Paper Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples Technical Report, No. 1999,04 Provided in Cooperation with: Collaborative Research Center 'Reduction of Complexity in Multivariate Data Structures' (SFB 475), University of Dortmund Suggested Citation: Haug, Alfred A. (1999) : Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples, Technical Report, No. 1999,04, Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475 - Komplexitätsreduktion in Multivariaten Datenstrukturen, Dortmund This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/77134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung
  • Equality and Efficiency: the Big Tradeoff Is a Very Personal Work from One of the Most Important Macroeconomists of the Last Efficiency and Equality Hundred Years

    Equality and Efficiency: the Big Tradeoff Is a Very Personal Work from One of the Most Important Macroeconomists of the Last Efficiency and Equality Hundred Years

    Originally published in 1975, Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff is a very personal work from one of the most important macroeconomists of the last equality and efficiency hundred years. In classrooms Arthur M. Okun may be best remembered for Okun’s Law, but equality his lasting legacy is the respect and admiration he earned from economists, practitioners, and policymakers. Equality and Efficiency is the perfect embodiment of that legacy, valued both by professional economists and readers with a keen interest in social policy. Okun presents an engaging dual theme: the market needs efficiency a place, and the market needs to be kept in its place. As he puts it, institutions in a capitalist democracy prod us to get ahead of our neighbors economically after telling us to stay in line socially. This double standard professes and pursues an egalitarian political and social system while simultaneously generating gaping The Big Tradeoff disparities in economic well-being. Today, Okun’s dual theme seems prescient as we grapple with the hot-button topic of income inequality. As Lawrence H. Summers writes: On what one might think of as questions of “economic philosophy,” I doubt that Okun has been improved on in the subsequent interval. His discussion of how societies rely on rights as well as markets should be required reading for all young economists who are enamored with market solutions to all problems. with a new foreword by lawrence h. summers This new edition includes “Further Thoughts on Equality and Efficiency,” a paper published by the author two years after the book’s publication.
  • What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots

    What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots

    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6 Volume Author/Editor: Olivier Jean Blanchard and Stanley Fischer, editors Volume Publisher: MIT Press Volume ISBN: 0-262-02335-0 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/blan91-1 Conference Date: March 8-9, 1991 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots Chapter Author: John Y. Campbell, Pierre Perron Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10983 Chapter pages in book: (p. 141 - 220) JohnY. Campbelland PierrePerron PRINCETONUNIVERSITY AND NBER/PRINCETONUNIVERSITY AND CRDE Pitfalls and Opportunities:What MacroeconomistsShould Know about Unit Roots* 1. Introduction The field of macroeconomics has its share of econometric pitfalls for the unwary applied researcher. During the last decade, macroeconomists have become aware of a new set of econometric difficulties that arise when one or more variables of interest may have unit roots in their time series representations. Standard asymptotic distribution theory often does not apply to regressions involving such variables, and inference can go seriously astray if this is ignored. In this paper we survey unit root econometrics in an attempt to offer the applied macroeconomist some reliable guidelines. Unit roots can create opportunities as well as problems for applied work. In some unit root regressions, coefficient estimates converge to the true parameter values at a faster rate than they do in standard regressions with stationary variables. In large samples, coefficient estimates with this property are robust to many types of misspecification, and they can be treated as known in subsequent empiri- cal exercises.
  • It's All in the Mix: How Monetary and Fiscal Policies Can Work Or Fail

    It's All in the Mix: How Monetary and Fiscal Policies Can Work Or Fail

    GENEVA REPORTS ON THE WORLD ECONOMY 23 Elga Bartsch, Agnès Bénassy-Quéré, Giancarlo Corsetti and Xavier Debrun IT’S ALL IN THE MIX HOW MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES CAN WORK OR FAIL TOGETHER ICMB INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MONETARY AND BANKING STUDIES CIMB CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D’ETUDES MONETAIRES ET BANCAIRES IT’S ALL IN THE MIX HOW MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES CAN WORK OR FAIL TOGETHER Geneva Reports on the World Economy 23 INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MONETARY AND BANKING STUDIES (ICMB) International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies 2, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 1202 Geneva Switzerland Tel: (41 22) 734 9548 Fax: (41 22) 733 3853 Web: www.icmb.ch © 2020 International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH Centre for Economic Policy Research 33 Great Sutton Street London EC1V 0DX UK Tel: +44 (20) 7183 8801 Fax: +44 (20) 7183 8820 Email: [email protected] Web: www.cepr.org ISBN: 978-1-912179-39-8 IT’S ALL IN THE MIX HOW MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES CAN WORK OR FAIL TOGETHER Geneva Reports on the World Economy 23 Elga Bartsch BlackRock Investment Institute Agnès Bénassy-Quéré University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris School of Economics and CEPR Giancarlo Corsetti University of Cambridge and CEPR Xavier Debrun National Bank of Belgium and European Fiscal Board ICMB INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MONETARY AND BANKING STUDIES CIMB CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D’ETUDES MONETAIRES ET BANCAIRES THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MONETARY AND BANKING STUDIES (ICMB) The International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICMB) was created in 1973 as an independent, non-profit foundation.