The purpose of this paper is to give an empirical answer to two related but different questions: First, are economic growth and business cycles interdependent? Second, is money neutral even in the long run? Using data from the United States, this paper finds (using a VAR model) and presents evidence for the interdependence hypothesis, and against the long-run money neutrality hypothesis. The results suggest that counter- cyclical growth models best capture the main channel of influence between cycles and growth. A policy implication is that, if money affects the cycle, it is not neutral even in the long run, and a positive monetary shock may result in hysteresis, having negative growth consequences.
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.
Did you know? All full texts are decentralized with the publishers, none reside on this server, thus making it possible to offer this service for free to all parties.