The Relative Importance of Permanent and Transitory Components: Identi- Fication and Some Theoretical Bounds
24 Pages Posted: 27 Jun 2007 Last revised: 17 Apr 2023
Date Written: June 1991
Abstract
Much macroeconometric discussion has recently emphasized the economic significance of the size of the permanent component in GNP. Consequently, a large literature has developed that tries to estimate this magnitude measured, essentially, as the spectral density of increments in GNP at frequency zero. This paper shows that unless the permanent component is a random walk this attention has been misplaced: in general, that quantity does not identify the magnitude of the permanent component. Further, by developing bounds on reasonable measures of this magnitude, the paper shows that a random walk specification is biased towards establishing the permanent component as important.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances
By Olivier J. Blanchard and Danny Quah
-
Sources of Business Cycle Fluctuations
By Matthew D. Shapiro and Mark W. Watson
-
Life-Cycle Models of Consumption: is the Evidence Consistent with the Theory?
By Angus Deaton
-
Permanent and Transitory Components in Macroeconomic Fluctuations
-
Are Cyclical Fluctuations in Productivity Due More to Supply Shocks or Demand Shocks?
-
Empirical Structural Evidence on Wages, Prices and Employment in the Us
-
Unemployment Hysteresis in the Us and the EU: A Panel Data Approach