重温菲利普斯曲线:有待验证的经验关系*

IF 1.5 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Hoang-Phuong Do, Aris Spanos
{"title":"重温菲利普斯曲线:有待验证的经验关系*","authors":"Hoang-Phuong Do,&nbsp;Aris Spanos","doi":"10.1111/obes.12605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Phillips curve began life in 1958 as a simple curve-fitted relationship between the rates of wage inflation and unemployment and went on to play a crucial role in the broader development of macroeconomics, giving rise to several controversies about its interpretation and role in policy-making. Recently, the traditional narrative about its theoretical underpinnings has been called into question as a sequence of ‘stories’ to provide support for particular theoretical perspectives on macroeconomics. The primary aim of this paper is to challenge the conventional wisdom relating to the Phillips curve being an attested empirical relationship, by showing that the empirical evidence of the most influential papers that helped to frame the traditional narrative is untrustworthy, in the sense that the probabilistic assumptions invoked by their inferences are invalid. That is, not only the traditional theory-driven narrative is misleading, but the empirical evidence used to corroborate it is untrustworthy.</p>","PeriodicalId":54654,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics","volume":"86 4","pages":"761-793"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the Phillips Curve: The Empirical Relationship Yet to be Validated*\",\"authors\":\"Hoang-Phuong Do,&nbsp;Aris Spanos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/obes.12605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Phillips curve began life in 1958 as a simple curve-fitted relationship between the rates of wage inflation and unemployment and went on to play a crucial role in the broader development of macroeconomics, giving rise to several controversies about its interpretation and role in policy-making. Recently, the traditional narrative about its theoretical underpinnings has been called into question as a sequence of ‘stories’ to provide support for particular theoretical perspectives on macroeconomics. The primary aim of this paper is to challenge the conventional wisdom relating to the Phillips curve being an attested empirical relationship, by showing that the empirical evidence of the most influential papers that helped to frame the traditional narrative is untrustworthy, in the sense that the probabilistic assumptions invoked by their inferences are invalid. That is, not only the traditional theory-driven narrative is misleading, but the empirical evidence used to corroborate it is untrustworthy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54654,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics\",\"volume\":\"86 4\",\"pages\":\"761-793\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obes.12605\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obes.12605","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

菲利普斯曲线始于 1958 年,是工资通胀率与失业率之间的一种简单曲线拟合关系,随后在宏观经济学的广泛发展中发挥了至关重要的作用,并引发了有关其解释和在政策制定中的作用的若干争议。最近,关于其理论基础的传统叙述受到质疑,认为它是为宏观经济学的特定理论观点提供支持的一连串 "故事"。本文的主要目的是挑战关于菲利普斯曲线是一种经验关系的传统观点,表明那些帮助构建传统观点的最有影响力的论文的经验证据是不可信的,因为其推论所援引的概率假设是无效的。也就是说,不仅传统理论驱动的叙事具有误导性,而且用来佐证它的经验证据也不可信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting the Phillips Curve: The Empirical Relationship Yet to be Validated*

The Phillips curve began life in 1958 as a simple curve-fitted relationship between the rates of wage inflation and unemployment and went on to play a crucial role in the broader development of macroeconomics, giving rise to several controversies about its interpretation and role in policy-making. Recently, the traditional narrative about its theoretical underpinnings has been called into question as a sequence of ‘stories’ to provide support for particular theoretical perspectives on macroeconomics. The primary aim of this paper is to challenge the conventional wisdom relating to the Phillips curve being an attested empirical relationship, by showing that the empirical evidence of the most influential papers that helped to frame the traditional narrative is untrustworthy, in the sense that the probabilistic assumptions invoked by their inferences are invalid. That is, not only the traditional theory-driven narrative is misleading, but the empirical evidence used to corroborate it is untrustworthy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 管理科学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Whilst the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics publishes papers in all areas of applied economics, emphasis is placed on the practical importance, theoretical interest and policy-relevance of their substantive results, as well as on the methodology and technical competence of the research. Contributions on the topical issues of economic policy and the testing of currently controversial economic theories are encouraged, as well as more empirical research on both developed and developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信