Two widely used methods of decomposing GDP into trend and cycle yield starkly different results. The unobserved component approach implies smooth trend with large, persistent cycle. In contrast, the Beveridge and Nelson (1981) approach implies most of the variation is attributable to trend. This conflict has been widely noted. It should surprise us that the two approaches produce very different trend-cycle decompositions since both are model-based. This paper attempts to find out why we do not, after decades of research, have a consistent picture of how variation in a series like real GDP should be allocated between trend and cycle.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.) This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.