Has the G7 business cycle become more synchronized ?
AbstractThis paper adopts Friedmanâ€™s Plucking Markov Switching Model to decompose G7 real GDPs into common permanent components, common transitory components, infrequent Markov Switching negative shock and domestic idiosyncratic components. The findings show that the common components explain a 53.1% average volatility of G7 GDPs from 1960 to 2002. Despite the moderated volatility of G7 economies, the G7 business cycle (except Japan) has become more synchronized in its fluctuations. In addition, from the dynamic factor model with Markov switching, there appears to have been a common permanent synchronized fluctuation in the Euro-zone countries after 1984. The probability that the common transitory component is contracting, accords quite well with U.S recessionary dates.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings with number 782.
Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC
G7; GDP; business cycle; Friedmanâ€™s Plucking Markov Switching Model; permanent; transitory;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- E32 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - Business Fluctuations; Cycles
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nelson, Charles R. & Plosser, Charles I., 1982. "Trends and random walks in macroeconmic time series : Some evidence and implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 139-162.
- John Y. Campbell & N. Gregory Mankiw, 1988.
"Are Output Fluctuations Transitory?,"
NBER Working Papers
1916, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Clark, Peter K, 1987. "The Cyclical Component of U.S. Economic Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 797-814, November.
- Chauvet, Marcelle, 1998. "An Econometric Characterization of Business Cycle Dynamics with Factor Structure and Regime Switching," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 969-96, November.
- Chang-Jin Kim & Jeremy Piger & Richard Startz, 2001. "Permanent and transitory components of business cycles: their relative importance and dynamic relationship," International Finance Discussion Papers 703, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Monfort, Alain & Renne, Jean-Paul & Rüffer, Rasmus & Vitale, Giovanni, 2003. "Is Economic Activity in the G7 Synchronized? Common Shocks versus Spillover Effects," CEPR Discussion Papers 4119, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Beaudry, Paul & Koop, Gary, 1993. "Do recessions permanently change output?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 149-163, April.
- Chang-Jin Kim & Christian J. Murray, 2002. "Permanent and transitory components of recessions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 163-183.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.