Research Database

In recent years, monopolistic competition models have frequently been applied in macroeconomics, international and interregional economics, and economic growth and development. In this paper, I present a highly selective review in this area, with special emphasis on the complementarity and its role of generating multiplier processes, agglomeration, underdevelopment traps, regional disparities, and sustainable growth, or more generally, what Myrdal (1957) called the “principle of circular and cumulative causation.”

Since the primary role of international financial linkages is to facilitate consumption smoothing in the face of country-specific shocks, the degree of international financial integration should play an important role in the international transmission of business cycles. This paper therefore studies the business cycle implications of restricting international trade in financial assets. The key restriction is that domestic residents must hold all risky claims to domestic output, trading only noncontingent bonds on the international asset markets. We find that restricting asset trade may or may not change the business cycle implications of the model relative to complete markets, depending on the parameterization of the stochastic process for productivity. When there are important differences, these stem largely from differential wealth effects. We also find that restricting asset trade can resolve the chief problem inherent in complete markets models, which is their predictions of too-high consumption correlations and too-low output correlations. When technology follows a random walk process, the restricted asset markets model predicts that cross-country output correlations are positive, and cross-country consumption correlations are smaller than the output correlations, as is typically observed in the data.

This article reports the recent progress made by researchers trying to build business cycle models that can reliably reproduce aggregate U.S. time series. The article first describes some features of the U.S. data that the models are meant to reproduce. Then it describes a version of the standard business cycle model, along with the indivisible labor extension of that model, both of which assume that fluctuations in economic activity are caused only by shocks to technology. Finally, it describes a version of recent other extensions which assume that shocks to fiscal variables also contribute to the fluctuations. Adding fiscal shocks to standard business cycle models is shown to significantly improve their ability to mimic some of the data.

This article reviews recent work comparing properties of international business cycles with those of dynamic general equilibrium models. Two discrepancies between theory and data are described. One concerns the correlation across countries of fluctuations in consumption, output, and productivity: in the data, the output correlation is generally the largest; in theoretical economies, however, for a wide range of parameter values, the consumption correlation is the largest. The other discrepancy concerns relative price movements: the standard deviation of the terms of trade is considerably larger in the data than in theoretical economies. Also described here are several changes in theoretical structure that researchers have attempted, without success, to bring the theory and the data closer together.

In a world where time series show clear seasonal fluctuations, rational agents will take account of those fluctuations in planning their own behavior. Using seasonally adjusted data to model behavior of such agents throws away information and introduces possibly severe bias. Nonetheless it may be true fairly often that rational expectations modeling with seasonally adjusted data, treating the adjusted data as if it were actual data, gives approximately correct results; and naive extensions of standard modeling techniques to seasonally unadjusted data may give worse results than naive use of adjusted data. This paper justifies these claims with examples and detailed arguments.