What (really) accounts for the fall in hours after a technology shock? |
| |
Institution: | 1. ISCAP-P.PORTO and CEOS.PP, Rua Jaime Lopes de Amorim, 4465-111 S. Mamede de Infesta, Portugal\n;2. CEF.UP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias S/N, 4200-464 Porto, Portugal;3. CEF.UP and FEP, U.PORTO, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias S/N, 4200-464 Porto, Portugal |
| |
Abstract: | The paper asks how state of the art DSGE models that account for the conditional response of hours following a positive neutral technology shock compare in a marginal likelihood race. To that end we construct and estimate several competing small-scale DSGE models that extend the standard real business cycle model. In particular, we identify from the literature six different hypotheses that generate the empirically observed decline in hours worked after a positive technology shock. These models alternatively exhibit (i) sticky prices; (ii) firm entry and exit with time to build; (iii) habit in consumption and costly adjustment of investment; (iv) persistence in the permanent technology shocks; (v) labor market friction with procyclical hiring costs; and (vi) Leontief production function with labor-saving technology shocks. In terms of model posterior probabilities, impulse responses, and autocorrelations, the model favored is the one that exhibits habit formation in consumption and investment adjustment costs. A robustness test shows that the sticky price model becomes as competitive as the habit formation and costly adjustment of investment model when sticky wages are included. |
| |
Keywords: | Sticky prices Firm entry and exit Habit in consumption Labor market frictions Permanent technology shocks Leontief production |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|