Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:48:53.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NOTE ON ENDOGENOUS PROPAGATION IN ONE-SECTOR BUSINESS CYCLE MODELS WITH DYNAMIC COMPLEMENTARITIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2012

Mao-Wei Hung  and
Shue-Jen Wu
Mao-Wei Hung*
Affiliation:
National Taiwan University
Shue-Jen Wu
Affiliation:
National Chi Nan University
*
Address correspondence to: Professor Mao-Wei Hung, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei City 106, Taiwan, Republic of China; e-mail: hung@management.ntu.edu.tw.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

When the production function includes dynamic complementarities and a Cobb--Douglas form, dynamic complementarities are an endogenous propagation mechanism of shocks. The proposed model explains several stylized facts of aggregate variables of interest, including (i) hump-shaped impulse response functions, (ii) positively autocorrelated growth rates of aggregate variables, and (iii) correlation coefficients of forecastable movements in aggregate variables.

Keywords

Business CycleEndogenous PropagationDynamic ComplementaritiesHump-Shaped Impulse-Response Function

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , November 2012 , pp. 791 - 801
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

References

REFERENCES

Baxter, M. and King, R. (1991) Productive Externalities and Business Cycles. Discussion paper 53, Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Benhabib, J. and Wen, Y. (2004) Indeterminacy, aggregate demand, and the real business cycle. Journal of Monetary Economics 51, 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boldrin, M., Christiano, L. J., and Fisher, J. D. (2001) Habit persistence asset returns, and the business cycle. American Economic Review 91, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Y., Gomes, J. F., and Schorfheide, F. (2002) Learning-by-doing as a propagation mechanism. American Economic Review 92, 1498–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogley, T. and Nason, J. M. (1995) Output dynamics in real-business-cycle models. American Economic Review 85, 492–511.Google Scholar
Cooley, T. F. and Hansen, G. D. (1989) The inflation tax in a real business cycle model. American Economic Review 79, 733–748.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. W. and Johri, A. (1997) Dynamic complementarities: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Monetary Economics 40, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. W. and Johri, A. (2002) Learning by doing and aggregate fluctuation, Journal of Monetary Economics 49, 1539–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edge, R. M. (2007) Time-to-build, time-to-plan, habit-persistence, and the liquidity effect. Journal of Monetary Economics 54, 1644–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. G., Plosser, C. I., and Rebelo, S. T. (1988a) Production, growth, and business cycles: I. The basic neoclassical model. Journal of Monetary Economics 21, 195–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. G., Plosser, C. I., and Rebelo, S. T. (1988b) Production, growth, and business cycles: II. New directions. Journal of Monetary Economics 21, 309–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newey, W. K. and West, K. D. (1987) Hypothesis testing with efficient method of moments estimation. International Economic Review 28, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogerson, R. (1988) Indivisible labor, lotteries and equilibrium. Journal of Monetary Economics 21, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotemberg, J. J. and Woodford, M. (1996) Real business-cycle models and the forecast movements in output, hours, and consumption. American Economic Review 86, 71–89.Google Scholar
Schmitt-Grohé, S. (2000) Output dynamics in real-business-cycle models. American Economic Review 90, 1136–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Y. (1998) Capital utilization under increasing returns to scale. Journal of Economic Theory 81, 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar