A statistical definition of the natural unemployment rate hypothesis is advanced and tested. A particular illustrative structural macroeconomic model satisfying the definition is set forth and estimated. The model has "classical" policy implications, implying a number of neutrality propositions asserting the invariance of the conditional means of real variables with respect to the feedback rule for the money supply. The aim is to test how emphatically the data reject a model incorporating rather severe "classical" hypotheses.
A dynamic linear demand schedule for labor is estimated and tested. The hypothesis of rational expectations and assumptions about the orders of the Markov processes governing technology impose over-identifying restrictions on a vector autoregression for straight-time employment, overtime employment, and the real wage. The model is estimated by the full information maximum likelihood method. The model is used as a vehicle for re-examining some of the paradoxical cyclical behavior of real wages described in the famous Dunlop-Tarshis-Keynes exchange.
This paper describes methods for conveniently formulating and estimating dynamic linear econometric models under the hypothesis of rational expectations. An econometrically convenient formula for the cross-equation rational expectations restrictions is derived. Models of error terms and the role of the concept of Granger causality in formulating rational expectations models are both discussed. Tests of hypothesis of strict econometric exogeneity along the lines of Sim’s are compared with a test that is related to Wu’s.
This paper describes methods for estimating the parameters of continuous time linear stochastic rational expectations models from discrete time observations. The economic models that we study are continuous time, multiple variable, stochastic, linear-quadratic rational expectations models. The paper shows how such continuous time models can properly be used to place restrictions on discrete time data. Various heuristic procedures for deducing the implications for discrete time data of these models, such as replacing derivatives with first differences, can sometimes give rise to very misleading conclusions about parameters. The idea is to express the restrictions imposed by the rational expectations model on the continuous time process of the observable variables. Then the likelihood function of a discrete-time sample of observations from this process is obtained. Estimators are obtained by maximizing the likelihood function with respect to the free parameters of the continuous time model.
This paper explores some of the implications for econometric practice of the principle that people’s observed behavior will change when their constraints change. In dynamic contexts, a proper definition of people’s constraints includes among them laws of motion that describe the evolution of the taxes they must pay and the prices of the goods that they buy and sell. Changes in agents’ perceptions of these laws of motion (or constraints) will in general produce changes in the schedules that describe the choices they make as a function of the information that they possess. Until very recently, received dynamic econometric practice ignored this principle. The practice of dynamic econometrics should be changed so that it is consistent with the principle that people’s rules of choice are influenced by their constraints. This is a substantial undertaking, and involves major adjustments in the ways that we formulate, estimate, and simulate econometric models.
This paper shows how the cross-equation restrictions delivered by the hypothesis of rational expectations can serve to solve the aliasing identification problem. It is shown how the rational expectations restrictions uniquely identify the parameters of a continuous time model from statistics of discrete time models.
On our interpretation, real bills advocates favor unfettered intermediation, while their critics, who we call quantity theorists, favor legal restrictions on intermediation geared to separate “money” from “credit.” We display examples of economies in which quantity-theory assertions about “money-supply” and price-level behavior under the real bills regime are valid. In particular, both the price level and an asset total that quantity theorists would identify as money fluctuate more under a real bills regime than under a regime with restrictions like those favored by quantity theorists. Despite this, the Pareto criterion does not support the quantity-theory position.