Research Database

A Beckerian model of household production is developed to study the allocation of capital and time between market and home activities over the business cycle. The adopted framework treats the business and household sectors symmetrically. In the market, labor interacts with business capital to produce market goods and services, and likewise at home the remaining time, leisure, is combined with household capital to produce home goods and services. The theoretical model presented is parameterized, calibrated, and simulated to see whether it can rationalize the observed allocation of capital and time, as well as other stylized facts, for the postwar U.S. economy.

We characterize equilibria of general equilibrium models with externalities and taxes as solutions to optimization problems. This characterization is similar to Negishi’s characterization of equilibria of economies without externalities or taxes as solutions to social planning problems. It is often useful for computing equilibria or deriving their properties. Frequently, however, finding the optimization problem that a particular equilibrium solves is difficult. This is especially true in economies with multiple equilibria. In a dynamic economy with externalities or taxes there may be a robust continuum of equilibria even if there is a representative consumer. This indeterminacy of equilibria is closely related to that in overlapping generations economies.

This paper investigates the impact on aggregate variables of changes in government consumption in the context of a stochastic, neoclassical growth model. We show, theoretically, that the impact on output and employment of a persistent change in government consumption exceeds that of temporary change. We also show that, in principle, there can be an analog to the Keynesian multiplier in the neoclassical growth model. Finally, in an empirically plausible version of the model, we show that the interest rate impact of a persistent government consumption shock exceeds that of a temporary one. Our results provide counterexamples to existing claims in the literature.

Forecasts are routinely revised, and these revisions are often the subject of informal analysis and discussion. This paper argues (1) that forecast revisions are analyzed because they help forecasters and forecast users to evaluate forecasts and forecasting procedures, and (2) that these analyses can be sharpened by using the forecasting model to systematically express its forecast revision as the sum of components identified with specific subsets of new information, such as data revisions and forecast errors. An algorithm for this purpose is explained and illustrated.

This paper, originally published in the fall 1979 Quarterly Review, explains why unfettered markets cannot determine a price at which the currency of one country exchanges for that of another. In effect, any price will work—something which is not true in other markets. The paper then argues that the only feasible regimes for these special markets are floating exchange rates with capital controls or fixed exchange rates with monetary and budget policy coordination.

This paper examines the response of real wages and employment probabilities to nominal shocks using micro-panel data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Young Men. Both economy-wide and sector-specific responses to nominal shocks are examined. The observed response patterns are inconsistent with nominal contract based theories of unemployment. These theories predict that nominal surprises should be negatively correlated with real wages in sectors with nominal contracting. In fact, inflation surprises are found to be essentially uncorrelated with real wages in all sectors, while money growth surprises are positively correlated with real wages in manufacturing and uncorrelated with real wages elsewhere. The positive real wage-money growth correlation in manufacturing is robust to controls for real shocks and business cycle conditions, so it does not appear to be explicable by real business cycle models with endogenous money. The type of model described by McCallum (1980, 1986), in which commodity prices are more rigid than wages, is consistent with the result.

This paper investigates the impact of aggregate variables of changes in government consumption in the context of a stochastic, neoclassical growth model. We show, theoretically, that the impact on output and employment of a persistent change in government consumption exceeds that of a temporary change. We also show that, in principle, there can be an analog to the Keynesian multiplier in the neoclassical growth model. Finally, in an empirically plausible version of the model, we show that the interest rate impact of a persistent government consumption shock exceeds that of a temporary one. Our results provide counterexamples to existing claims in the literature.

In the 1930s, Dunlop and Tarshis observed that the correlation between hours worked and the return to working is close to zero. This 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 consumption shocks to influence labor market dynamics in a way suggested by Aschauer (1985), Baro (1981, 1987), and Kormendi (1983). This modification can, in principle, bring the models into closer conformity with the data. Our results indicate that when aggregate demand shocks arising from stochastic movements in government consumption are incorporated into the analysis, and an empirically plausible degree of measurement error is allowed for, the model’s empirical performance is substantially improved.

This paper uses a simple, graphical approach to analyze what happens to commodity prices and economic welfare when futures markets are introduced into an economy. It concludes that these markets do not necessarily make prices more or less stable. It also concludes that, contrary to common belief, whatever happens to commodity prices is not necessarily related to what happens to the economic welfare of market participants: even when futures markets reduce the volatility of prices, some people can be made worse off. These conclusions come from a series of models that differ in their assumptions about the primary function of futures markets, the structure of the industries involved, and the tastes and technologies of the market participants.