IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Shocking Stuff: Technology, Hours, And Factor Substitution

  • Cristiano Cantore
  • Miguel León-Ledesma
  • Peter McAdam
  • Alpo Willman

The response of hours to technology shocks is a key controversy in macroeconomics. We show that differences between RBC and NK models hinge on highly restrictive views of technology. We introduce CES production technologies and demonstrate that the response of hours depends on the factor-augmenting nature of shocks and the capital–labor substitution elasticity in both models. We develop analytical expressions to establish the thresholds determining its sign. This opens new margins for shock identification combining theory and VAR evidence. We discuss how our models provide new robust restrictions for empirical work, especially using the labor income share.

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by European Economic Association in its journal Journal of the European Economic Association.

Volume (Year): 12 (2014)
Issue (Month): 1 (02)
Pages: 108-128

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:jeurec:v:12:y:2014:i:1:p:108-128
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles L. Evans, 2001. "Nominal rigidities and the dynamic effects of a shock to monetary policy," Working Paper Series WP-01-08, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  2. Levine, Paul & McAdam, Peter & Pearlman, Joseph G., 2007. "Quantifying and sustaining welfare gains from monetary commitment," Working Paper Series 0709, European Central Bank.
  3. Dedola, Luca & Neri, Stefano, 2006. "What does a technology shock do? A VAR analysis with model-based sign restrictions," Working Paper Series 0705, European Central Bank.
  4. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521898010 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Miguel A León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "Non-Balanced Growth and Production Technology Estimation," Studies in Economics 1204, School of Economics, University of Kent.
  6. Charles I. Jones, 2003. "Growth, capital shares, and a new perspective on production functions," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Nov.
  7. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2003. "What happens after a technology shock?," International Finance Discussion Papers 768, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  8. Luca Gambetti & Jordi Galí, 2007. "On the sources of the Great Moderation," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Nov.
  9. Schmitt-Grohé, Stephanie & Uribe, Martín, 2004. "Optimal Simple and Implementable Monetary and Fiscal Rules," CEPR Discussion Papers 4334, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. Michelle Alexopoulos, 2004. "Read All About it: What happens following a technology shock," 2004 Meeting Papers 56, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  11. Fabio Canova, 2009. "What Explains The Great Moderation in the U.S.? A Structural Analysis," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(4), pages 697-721, 06.
  12. Neville Francis & Michael T. Owyang & Athena T. Theodorou, 2003. "The use of long-run restrictions for the identification of technology shocks," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Nov, pages 53-66.
  13. 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.
  14. Hicks, J. R., 1969. "A Theory of Economic History," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198811633.
  15. V. V. Chari & Patrick J. Kehoe & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2009. "New Keynesian Models: Not Yet Useful for Policy Analysis," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 242-66, January.
  16. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Technical Change, Inequality, and the Labor Market," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 7-72, March.
  17. 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.
  18. Yuhn, Ky-hyang, 1991. "Economic Growth, Technical Change Biases, and the Elasticity of Substitution: A Test of the De La Grandville Hypothesis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 340-46, May.
  19. Jordi Gali & Pau Rabanal, 2004. "Technology Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations: How Well Does the RBS Model Fit Postwar U.S. Data?," NBER Working Papers 10636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  20. Olivier de La Grandville & Rainer Klump, 2000. "Economic Growth and the Elasticity of Substitution: Two Theorems and Some Suggestions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 282-291, March.
  21. Sean Holly & Ivan Petrella, 2012. "Factor Demand Linkages, Technology Shocks, and the Business Cycle," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 948-963, November.
  22. Susanto Basu & John G. Fernald & Nicholas Oulton & Sylaja Srinivasan, 2003. "The Case of the Missing Productivity Growth: Or, Does Information Technology Explain why Productivity Accelerated in the US but not the UK?," NBER Working Papers 10010, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. 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.
  24. Klump, Rainer & McAdam, Peter & Willman, Alpo, 2011. "The normalized CES production function: theory and empirics," Working Paper Series 1294, European Central Bank.
  25. Charles I. Jones, 2004. "The Shape of Production Function and the Direction of Technical Change," NBER Working Papers 10457, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Coenen, Günter & McAdam, Peter & Straub, Roland, 2007. "Tax reform and labour-market performance in the euro area: a simulation-based analysis using the New Area-Wide Model," Working Paper Series 0747, European Central Bank.
  27. Robert Chirinko, 2002. "Corporate Taxation, Capital Formation, and the Substitution Elasticity between Labor and Capital," Emory Economics 0201, Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta).
  28. McAdam, Peter & Willman, Alpo, 2013. "Medium Run Redux," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(04), pages 695-727, June.
  29. Miles S. Kimball & John G. Fernald & Susanto Basu, 2006. "Are Technology Improvements Contractionary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1418-1448, December.
  30. Camilo E Tovar, 2008. "DSGE models and central banks," BIS Working Papers 258, Bank for International Settlements.
  31. Cristiano Cantore & Paul Levine, 2011. "Getting Normalization Right: Dealing with 'Dimensional Constants' in Macroeconomics," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0511, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
  32. Chirinko, Robert S., 2008. "[sigma]: The long and short of it," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 671-686, June.
  33. Fabio Canova & Matthias Paustian, 2007. "Business cycle measurement with some theory," Economics Working Papers 1203, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jul 2011.
  34. Susanto Basu & John G. Fernald & Nicholas Oulton & Sylaja Srinivasan, 2003. "The Case of the Missing Productivity Growth: Or, Does Information technology explain why productivity accelerated in the United States but not the United Kingdom?," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 2021, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  35. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809.
  36. Rossi, Barbara & Pesavento, Elena, 2003. "Do Technology Shocks Drive Hours Up or Down? A Little Evidence from an Agnostic Procedure," Working Papers 03-23, Duke University, Department of Economics.
  37. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521725200 is not listed on IDEAS
  38. Harald Uhlig, 2004. "Do Technology Shocks Lead to a Fall in Total Hours Worked?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 361-371, 04/05.
  39. Jonas D. M. Fisher, 2006. "The Dynamic Effects of Neutral and Investment-Specific Technology Shocks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 413-451, June.
  40. Miguel A. Le�n-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2010. "Identifying the Elasticity of Substitution with Biased Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1330-57, September.
  41. Barbara Rossi & Elena Pesavento, 2004. "Do Technology Shocks Drive Hours Up or Down?," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 96, Econometric Society.
  42. Julio J. Rotemberg, 2003. "Stochastic Technical Progress, Smooth Trends, and Nearly Distinct Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1543-1559, December.
  43. Marquetti, Adalmir A., 2003. "Analyzing historical and regional patterns of technical change from a classical-Marxian perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 191-200, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jeurec:v:12:y:2014:i:1:p:108-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.