NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics最新文献_第5页

The Cyclical Behavior of Equilibrium Unemployment and Vacancies in the United States and Europe 美国和欧洲均衡失业和职位空缺的周期性行为

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-08-23 DOI: 10.1086/663623

Alejandro Justiniano, Claudio Michelacci

引用次数: 15

Flexing Your Muscles: Abandoning a Fixed Exchange Rate for Greater Flexibility 展示你的实力:放弃固定汇率以获得更大的灵活性

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-08-22 DOI: 10.1086/663627

Barry Eichengreen, A. Rose

引用次数: 5

The Fiscal Stimulus of 2009–2010: Trade Openness, Fiscal Space, and Exchange Rate Adjustment 2009-2010年财政刺激:贸易开放、财政空间与汇率调整

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-08-17 DOI: 10.3386/W17427

J. Aizenman, Yothin Jinjarak

引用次数: 41

Long-Term Barriers to the International Diffusion of Innovations 创新国际传播的长期障碍

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-08-01 DOI: 10.1086/663612

Enrico Spolaore, Romain Wacziarg

引用次数: 52

Toward a Political Economy of Macroeconomic Thinking 走向宏观经济思维的政治经济学

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-06-01 DOI: 10.1086/663624

G. Saint‐Paul

{"title":"Toward a Political Economy of Macroeconomic Thinking","authors":"G. Saint‐Paul","doi":"10.1086/663624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/663624","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates, in a simplified macro context, the joint determination of the (incorrect) perceived model and the equilibrium. I assume that the model is designed by a self-interested economist who knows the true structural model, but reports a distorted one so as to influence outcomes. This model influences both the people and the government; the latter tries to stabilize an unobserved demand shock and will make different inferences about that shock depending on the model it uses. The model’s choice is constrained by a set of autocoherence conditions that state that, in equilibrium, if everybody uses the model then it must correctly predict the moments of the observables. I then study, in particular, how the models devised by the economists vary depending on whether they are \"progressive\" vs. \"conservative\". The predictions depend greatly on the specifics of the economy being considered. But in many cases, they are plausible. For example, conservative economists will tend to report a lower keynesian multiplier, and a greater long-term inflationary impact of output expansions. On the other hand, the economists’ margin of manoeuver is constrained by the autocoherence conditions. Here, a \"progressive\" economist who promotes a Keynesian multiplier larger than it really is, must, to remain consistent, also claim that demand shocks are more volatile than they really are. Otherwise, people will be disappointed by the stabilization performance of fiscal policy and reject the hypothesized value of the multiplier. In some cases, autocoherence induces the experts to make, loosely speaking, ideological concessions on some parameter values. The analysis is illustrated by empirical evidence from the Survey of Professional Forecasters","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122089467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 8

Comment 评论

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI: 10.1086/658310

C. Favero

引用次数: 0

Comment 评论

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI: 10.1086/658324

R. Cumby

{"title":"Comment","authors":"R. Cumby","doi":"10.1086/658324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/658324","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, Berge, Jordà, and Taylor significantly enhance our understanding of an important problem that has long occupied (plagued?) those studying international finance. About 30 years ago researchers began publishing evidence of systematic deviations from uncovered interest parity or, equivalently, of forward exchange rate bias. This raised an immediate set of questions. The first questions involved whether those results were a quirk of the sample period or the statistical tests employed. Over time it became apparent that the results were, in fact, robust. The more thorny questions involved what to make of the results. To what extent were the apparent deviations from uncovered interest parity or the corresponding apparent profits from the carry trade (which attempts to exploit deviations from uncovered interest parity by borrowing in low interest rate currencies and lending in high interest rate currencies) due to the absence or underrepresentation in the sample of large adverse events—the so-called peso problem—and to what extent were they real? And to the extent that they were real, did they reflect compensation for bearing risk or mispricing (inefficiency), or both? Those questions have proven to be perennial as well as thorny. Two surveys of this literature, Hodrick (1987) and Engel (1996), stand up extremely well to rereading today and contain excellent analytical descriptions of the accumulating evidence in the 10 or 15 years after the first evidence of a systematic forward bias emerged from the literature. Engel’s concluding paragraph (1996, 183) provides a summary of the state of knowledge at the time: “Progress in any scientific field is usually made in small increments. While Hodrick’s (1987) conclusion—‘We do not yet have a model of expected returns that fits the data’—is equally applicable today, progress has been made. What we have learned since 1987 is that many simple explanations for the forward exchange rate bias","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122047656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comment 评论

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI: 10.1086/658322

Stephen G. Cecchetti

{"title":"Comment","authors":"Stephen G. Cecchetti","doi":"10.1086/658322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/658322","url":null,"abstract":"This most recent in the series of Claessens, Kose, and Terrones papers continues tomine the extensive and useful data set they have constructed bringing together financial and real economic variable for a broad range of countries. This effort examines three aggregate financial time series—real domestic credit, real house prices, and real equity prices— for 21 countries, quarterly, over the past 50 years. That is, they start their journey with something like 12,000 separate observations in their vault. With this vast store of information, it is unsurprising that this is a paper about data, not the economic implications. The authors spend their time here characterizing the frequency, duration, and amplitude of the downturns and recoveries that are present in the time series. That said, the minute you start reading the paper, you encounter an eye-popping number: 470. The authors identify more than 470 financial cycles: 473 downturns and 480 upturns, that is, roughly 22 cycles per country in their data set. The natural question is, What are we to make of this apparently enormous number of financial cycles? With that as motivation, I will organize my comments into two parts: what the authors do and what is missing. Starting with what they do, I have already mentioned the data and the results. Going into a bit more detail, then, I will briefly discuss data concepts before turning to the methods used by Claessens et al. to identify the cycles.","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"188 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124173318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comment 评论

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI: 10.1086/658311

Martin Feldstein

{"title":"Comment","authors":"Martin Feldstein","doi":"10.1086/658311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/658311","url":null,"abstract":"This is a very timely paper. Thomas Laubach is to be commended for working in real time on this important issue. His analysis starts with an important analytic point: To understand the effect of fiscal conditions on interest rates, one must separate four effects: (1) traditional crowding out, (2) macroeconomic cyclical effects, (3) perceived risk of default, and (4) risk aversion with respect to the risk of default. These have played different roles in different countries and at different times. Laubach notes that only the first two have been relevant in the United States, with (in his judgment) the macrocyclical effects dominating. In the EuropeanMonetary Union (EMU) in recent years, default became more important, with differences in the country-specific risk becoming key since 2009 in explaining large increases in interest rates in several countries. I agree with this important analytic point. Measuring deficits. There are difficult problems in measuring fiscal deficits and future fiscal conditions, the key variables in Laubach’s analysis. He correctly notes that pure econometric forecasts of future deficits are inadequate.He therefore usesCongressional BudgetOffice (CBO) forecasts for the United States and OECD forecasts for the EMU countries. Laubach recognizes that these are quite imperfect as measures of the conceptually relevant variables. The CBO’s “baseline forecast” is required by law to project future deficits on the assumption that the existing lawwill continue in the future. There are also CBO forecasts based on the administration’s budget each year.While there are no forecasts based on consensus judgments about what legislative changes might occur in the future, the CBO’s Long Term Budget Outlook ( June 2010) contains an “Alternative Fiscal Scenario” that the CBO staff believes is themost likely outlook for future budget policies and the resulting deficits. It would be interesting to compare these informed judgmental forecasts with the CBO baseline figures to see howmisleading the latter might be. The data","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125010142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comment 评论

NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI: 10.1086/658319

G. Lorenzoni

引用次数: 0