IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Output volatility in the OECD: Are the member states becoming less vulnerable to exogenous shocks?


  • Jorge M. Andraz
  • Nelia M. Norte


This paper analyses the vulnerability of OECD member states to external shocks by estimating the degree of asymmetric effects from positive and negative shocks. We use asymmetric conditional heteroscedasticity models with endogenously determined regime changes in a context of progressive moderation in both moments. The results suggest that recessions are associated with higher volatility and significant leverage effects. The estimated impacts of negative and positive shocks amount to 0.961 and 0.028 respectively. The disaggregated analysis over different periods reveals an increasing pattern of these asymmetries, as well as huge differences among the countries. The country-specific analysis suggest an increasing vulnerability to negative exogenous shocks in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom, although with different levels, and decreasing vulnerability in Canada, Greece, Italy and New Zealand. Finally, some economies seem to have developed higher levels of immunity to external shocks by reaching balanced effects from positive and negative shocks. Among these are the largest European economies, together with the northern economies, the United States and the wealthiest economies of Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge M. Andraz & Nelia M. Norte, 2013. "Output volatility in the OECD: Are the member states becoming less vulnerable to exogenous shocks?," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 18(2), pages 91-122, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eis:articl:213andraz

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. WenShwo Fang & Stephen M. Miller & ChunShen Lee, 2008. "Cross-Country Evidence On Output Growth Volatility: Nonstationary Variance And Garch Models," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 55(4), pages 509-541, September.
    2. Nelson, Daniel B, 1991. "Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns: A New Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 347-370, March.
    3. Lee, Jim, 1999. "The inflation and output variability tradeoff: evidence from a Garch model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 63-67, January.
    4. Ólan T. Henry & Nilss Olekalns, 2002. "The Effect of Recessions on the Relationship between Output Variability and Growth," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(3), pages 683-692, January.
    5. Hamori, Shigeyuki, 2000. "Volatility of real GDP: some evidence from the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 143-152, May.
    6. Ramey, Garey & Ramey, Valerie A, 1995. "Cross-Country Evidence on the Link between Volatility and Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1138-1151, December.
    7. Martin, Philippe & Ann Rogers, Carol, 2000. "Long-term growth and short-term economic instability," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 359-381, February.
    8. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    9. Olivier Blanchard & John Simon, 2001. "The Long and Large Decline in U.S. Output Volatility," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 32(1), pages 135-174.
    10. Stilianos Fountas & Menelaos Karanasos & Alfonso Mendoza, 2004. "Output Variability and Economic Growth: the Japanese Case," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 353-363, October.
    11. Robin L. Lumsdaine & David H. Papell, 1997. "Multiple Trend Breaks And The Unit-Root Hypothesis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(2), pages 212-218, May.
    12. Margaret M. McConnell & Gabriel Perez-Quiros, 2000. "Output fluctuations in the United States: what has changed since the early 1980s?," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Mar.
    13. Perron, Pierre, 1989. "The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1361-1401, November.
    14. Bhar, Ramaprasad & Hamori, Shigeyuki, 2003. "Alternative characterization of the volatility in the growth rate of real GDP," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231, April.
    15. Sangjoon Kim & Neil Shephard & Siddhartha Chib, 1998. "Stochastic Volatility: Likelihood Inference and Comparison with ARCH Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 361-393.
    16. Grier, Kevin B. & Tullock, Gordon, 1989. "An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951-1980," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 259-276, September.
    17. Caporale, Tony & McKiernan, Barbara, 1996. "The Relationship between Output Variability and Growth: Evidence from Post War UK Data," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 43(2), pages 229-236, May.
    18. Wen-Shwo Fang & Stephen M. Miller, 2008. "The Great Moderation and The Relationship between Output Growth and Its Volatility," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 819-838, January.
    19. Hillebrand, Eric, 2005. "Neglecting parameter changes in GARCH models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 129(1-2), pages 121-138.
    20. Philip Bodman, 2009. "Output volatility in Australia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(24), pages 3117-3129.
    21. Chang-Jin Kim & Charles R. Nelson, 1999. "Has The U.S. Economy Become More Stable? A Bayesian Approach Based On A Markov-Switching Model Of The Business Cycle," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 608-616, November.
    22. Jim Lee, 2002. "The Inflation-Output Variability Tradeoff and Monetary Policy: Evidence from a GARCH Model," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 175-188, July.
    23. Terence C. Mills & Ping Wang, 2003. "Have output growth rates stabilised? evidence from the g-7 economies," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(3), pages 232-246, August.
    24. Hamilton, James D. & Susmel, Raul, 1994. "Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity and changes in regime," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 307-333.
    25. Peter M. Summers, 2005. "What caused the Great Moderation? : some cross-country evidence," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q III, pages 5-32.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Hartwell, Christopher A., 2014. "The impact of institutional volatility on financial volatility in transition economies : a GARCH family approach," BOFIT Discussion Papers 6/2014, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • E23 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Production
    • E32 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - Business Fluctuations; Cycles


    Access and download statistics


    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:eis:articl:213andraz. 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: (Dan Wheatley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.