IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/moneco/v56y2009i4p560-569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What do technology shocks tell us about the New Keynesian paradigm?

Author

Listed:
  • Dupor, Bill
  • Han, Jing
  • Tsai, Yi-Chan

Abstract

Researchers have used unanticipated changes to monetary policy to identify preference and technology parameters of macroeconomic models. This paper uses changes in technology to identify the same set of parameters. Estimates based on technology shocks differ substantially from those based on monetary policy shocks. In the post-World War II United States, a positive technology shock reduces inflation and increases hours worked, significantly and rapidly in both cases. Relative to policy shock identification, technology shock identification implies: (i) long duration durability in preferences instead of short duration habit, (ii) built-in inflation inertia disappears and price flexibility increases. In response to technological improvement, consumption durability increases hours worked because households temporarily increase labor supply to accumulate durables towards a new, higher steady state level. Limited nominal rigidities allow inflation to fall because firms are able to immediately cut prices when households' labor supply increases. Finally, we consider alternative data constructions and econometric specifications; we find that (i) and/or (ii) hold in nearly every case.

Suggested Citation

  • Dupor, Bill & Han, Jing & Tsai, Yi-Chan, 2009. "What do technology shocks tell us about the New Keynesian paradigm?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 560-569, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:moneco:v:56:y:2009:i:4:p:560-569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304-3932(09)00047-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2006. "Alternative Procedures for Estimating Vector Autoregressions Identified with Long-Run Restrictions," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(2-3), pages 475-483, 04-05.
    2. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Mirko Wiederholt, 2015. "Business Cycle Dynamics under Rational Inattention," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(4), pages 1502-1532.
    3. N. Gregory Mankiw & Ricardo Reis, 2002. "Sticky Information versus Sticky Prices: A Proposal to Replace the New Keynesian Phillips Curve," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(4), pages 1295-1328.
    4. Ben S. Bernanke & Julio J. Rotemberg (ed.), 1997. "NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026252242x, December.
    5. David Altig & Lawrence Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Jesper Linde, 2011. "Firm-Specific Capital, Nominal Rigidities and the Business Cycle," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 14(2), pages 225-247, April.
    6. Paciello, Luigi, 2007. "The Response of Prices to Technology and Monetary Policy Shocks under Rational Inattention," MPRA Paper 5763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Nason, James M & Cogley, Timothy, 1994. "Testing the Implications of Long-Run Neutrality for Monetary Business Cycle Models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(S), pages 37-70, Suppl. De.
    8. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles L. Evans, 2005. "Nominal Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a Shock to Monetary Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(1), pages 1-45, February.
    9. Jordi Gali, 1999. "Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 249-271, March.
    10. Christopher J. Erceg & Luca Guerrieri & Christopher Gust, 2005. "Can Long-Run Restrictions Identify Technology Shocks?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(6), pages 1237-1278, December.
    11. Galí, Jordi & Rabanal, Pau, 2004. "Technology Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations: How Well Does the RBC Model Fit Post-War US Data?," CEPR Discussion Papers 4522, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Fabio Canova & David Lopez-Salido & Claudio Michelacci, 2010. "The effects of technology shocks on hours and output: a robustness analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(5), pages 755-773.
    13. Rochelle M. Edge & Thomas Laubach & John C. Williams, 2003. "The responses of wages and prices to technology shocks," Working Paper Series 2003-21, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    14. Fernald, John G., 2007. "Trend breaks, long-run restrictions, and contractionary technology improvements," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2467-2485, November.
    15. David Altig & Lawrence Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Jesper Linde, 2011. "Firm-Specific Capital, Nominal Rigidities and the Business Cycle," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 14(2), pages 225-247, April.
    16. Francis, Neville & Ramey, Valerie A., 2005. "Is the technology-driven real business cycle hypothesis dead? Shocks and aggregate fluctuations revisited," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(8), pages 1379-1399, November.
    17. Gali, Jordi & Gertler, Mark, 1999. "Inflation dynamics: A structural econometric analysis," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 195-222, October.
    18. Jean Boivin & Marc P. Giannoni, 2006. "Has Monetary Policy Become More Effective?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 445-462, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carrillo, Julio A., 2012. "How well does sticky information explain the dynamics of inflation, output, and real wages?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 830-850.
    2. Avouyi-Dovi, S. & Matheron, J., 2005. "Technology Shocks and Monetary Policy in an Estimated Sticky Price Model of the US Economy," Working papers 123, Banque de France.
    3. Frank Smets & Rafael Wouters, 2007. "Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 586-606, June.
    4. David Altig & Lawrence Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Jesper Linde, 2011. "Firm-Specific Capital, Nominal Rigidities and the Business Cycle," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 14(2), pages 225-247, April.
    5. Danthine, Jean-Pierre & Kurmann, André, 2010. "The business cycle implications of reciprocity in labor relations," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(7), pages 837-850, October.
    6. Luigi Paciello, 2011. "Does Inflation Adjust Faster to Aggregate Technology Shocks than to Monetary Policy Shocks?," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(8), pages 1663-1684, December.
    7. Gubler, Matthias & Hertweck, Matthias S., 2013. "Commodity price shocks and the business cycle: Structural evidence for the U.S," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 324-352.
    8. Giuli, Francesco & Tancioni, Massimiliano, 2012. "Real rigidities, productivity improvements and investment dynamics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 100-118.
    9. Nucci, Francesco & Riggi, Marianna, 2013. "Performance pay and changes in U.S. labor market dynamics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 2796-2813.
    10. Hikaru Saijo, 2019. "Technology Shocks and Hours Revisited: Evidence from Household Data," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 31, pages 347-362, January.
    11. Federico Di Pace & Matthias Hertweck, 2019. "Labor Market Frictions, Monetary Policy, and Durable Goods," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 32, pages 274-304, April.
    12. Zheng Liu & Daniel F. Waggoner & Tao Zha, 2009. "Sources of the Great Moderation: shocks, frictions, or monetary policy?," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2009-03, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    13. Andrei Polbin & Sergey Drobyshevsky, 2014. "Developing a Dynamic Stochastic Model of General Equilibrium for the Russian Economy," Research Paper Series, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, issue 166P, pages 156-156.
    14. Fabio Canova & David Lopez-Salido & Claudio Michelacci, 2010. "The effects of technology shocks on hours and output: a robustness analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(5), pages 755-773.
    15. Matheron, Julien & Poilly, Céline, 2009. "How well does a small structural model with sticky prices and wages fit postwar U.S. data?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 266-284, January.
    16. Milani, Fabio, 2007. "Expectations, learning and macroeconomic persistence," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(7), pages 2065-2082, October.
    17. Kim, Bae-Geun, 2010. "Identifying a permanent markup shock and its implications for macroeconomic dynamics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1471-1491, August.
    18. Marianna Riggi, 2010. "Nominal And Real Wage Rigidities In New Keynesian Models: A Critical Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 539-572, July.
    19. Ambler, Steve & Guay, Alain & Phaneuf, Louis, 2012. "Endogenous business cycle propagation and the persistence problem: The role of labor-market frictions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 47-62.
    20. Atahan Afsar; José Elías Gallegos; Richard Jaimes; Edgar Silgado Gómez & José Elías Gallegos & Richard Jaimes & Edgar Silgado Gómez, 2020. "Reconciling Empirics and Theory: The Behavioral Hybrid New Keynesian Model," Vniversitas Económica 18560, Universidad Javeriana - Bogotá.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:moneco:v:56:y:2009:i:4:p:560-569. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505566 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.