Does trend inflation make a difference?

Although the average inflation rate of developed countries in the postwar period has been greater than zero, much of the extensive literature on monetary policy has employed models that assume zero steady-state inflation. In comparing four estimated medium–scale NK DSGE models with real and nominal frictions, we seek to shed light on the quantitative implications of omitting trend inflation, that is, positive steady–state inflation. We compare certain population characteristics and the IRFs for the four models by applying two loss functions based on a point distance criterion and on a distribution distance criterion, respectively. Finally, we compare the RMSE forecasts and we consider also an indirect inference test. We repeat the analysis for three sub-periods: the Great Inflation, the Great Moderation and the union of the two periods. We do not find strong evidence that a model with trend inflation should always be preferred. During periods of high inflation or when a backward-looking component, indexed to past inflation, is not incorporated in the model, using a model that employs trend inflation can improve the analysis. Nevertheless, where there is uncertainty concerning the change of an inflation regime, such as the recent drop, we suggest adopting a traditional approach that does not use trend inflation.     

Does the New Keynesian Phillips curve need countercyclical markups?

This paper examines the behavior of four types of markup measures and its implications for the new Keynesian Phillips curve (NKPC). The four types of measures are a procyclical measure, a weakly procyclical measure, an acyclical measure and a countercyclical measure. Motivated by the fact that the U.S. markup has shifted up dramatically since the early 2000s, the paper also presents both empirical dynamics and a new Keynesian model featuring nonstationary markups. After inspecting empirical dynamics of key macroeconomic variables and the performance of the model, it points out that weakly procyclical or acyclical markups are more consistent with the purely forward-looking NKPC. Moreover, a major shortcoming of standard new Keynesian models is their inability to trace the actual behavior of the markup in response to a demand shock.     

基于Dynare的RBC模型的计算与模拟

介绍真实经济周期模型(RBC),并推导该模型的解及动态随机一般均衡模型的一般结构。利用Dynare计算和模拟RBC模型的产出、消费、资本和实际利率的效应.结果表明,模拟的脉冲响应曲线能够捕捉技术冲击对这些变量的效应,且模型计算的速度和精度都达到了预期要求。     

The New Keynesian business cycle achievements and challenges

The New-Keynesian (NK) business cycle model has presented itself as a potential “workhorse” model for business cycle analysis. This paper seeks to assess afresh the performance of the baseline NK model and its various extensions. The main theme of the paper is that although the dynamic NK literature has secured a robust defence to criticism arising, inter alia, on account of lack of microfoundations, it still has a long way to go in terms of providing a fully satisfactory model of the business cycle. In this regard, it is conjectured that explicitly accounting for the role of heterogeneity in business-cycle dynamics could lead towards a viable solution.

Optimal simple rules and the lower bound on the nominal interest rate in the Christiano–Eichenbaum–Evans model of the US business cycle

Schmitt-Grohé and Uribe (NBER wp 10724, 2004b) analyzes the optimal, simple and implementable monetary policy rules in a medium-scale macromodel, as the one proposed by Christiano et al. (J Polit Econ 113:1–45, 2005). In doing so, they use a sensible, but somewhat arbitrary constraint to account for the lower bound condition on the nominal interest rate. In this work, we check the robustness of their main results to such a criteria. We find that the optimal policies are actually absolutely robust to the easing of this criterion for all the different cases considered.

非正规金融与正规金融:互补还是替代?——基于DSGE模型的相互作用机制研究

文章通过建立四部门动态随机一般均衡模型,分析了二元金融体系下正规金融与非正规金融部门之间的作用机制,并对模型进行数值模拟。研究发现,在居民消费偏好冲击和技术冲击两种情况下,正规金融与非正规金融部门之间主要是互补关系,表现为两部门贷款利率和贷款规模的同向变动;而在货币政策冲击下,两部门短期内呈现相互替代的关系。     

Structural heterogeneity or asymmetric shocks? Poland and the euro area through the lens of a two-country DSGE model

This paper presents a two-country model linking Poland and the euro area and applies it for assessment of heterogeneity across these two regions. Overall, our results can be seen as rather inconclusive about the differences in parameters describing agents' decision-making in Poland and in the euro area. On the contrary, we find strong evidence for heterogeneity in terms of volatility and synchronization of shocks hitting both economies. Our results may be viewed as a step towards estimating the costs of Poland's entry to the European Monetary Union, associated with giving up the monetary autonomy and losing benefits from stabilizing movements of the exchange rate.     

Accounting for the business cycle: Nominal rigidities, factor heterogeneity, and Austrian capital theory

An Austrian interpretation of the New Keynesian small menu cost model of the business cycle is proposed. Austrian and New Keynesian business cycle theories share the feature that the cycle is generated by rigidities which prevent the economy from adapting instantaneously to changing conditions. Austrian business cycle theory is capital-based, focusing on credit expansion which artificially lowers interest rates and causes an investment boom and unsustainable business expansion. In contrast, the New Keynesian small menu cost model of the business cycle is based on nominal rigidities which prevent markets from clearing. Small menu costs introduce dichotomous behavior, where firms find it locally optimal to avoid instantaneous output price adjustments in the face of the cost, but this local optimum results in economy-wide output and employment fluctuations which are much greater in relative magnitude. The small menu cost model of the business cycle is extended and reinterpreted in light of Austrian business cycle theory with heterogeneous, multiply-specific capital, thus providing a rigorous formalization of the Austrian business cycle. The Austrian interpretation of this New Keynesian model fortuitously addresses several of its shortcomings. JEL classification B53, E12, E23, E32