IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Relative Demand Shocks

Listed author(s):
  • Francesco Busato

    ()

    (Department of Economics, University of Aarhus, Denmark)

This paper introduces the concept of relative demand shocks into a multi-sector dynamic general equilibrium model. Relative demand shocks change the instantaneous structure of preferences. Under relative demand shocks consumer tastes randomly shift across different commodities, as manifested by unexpected relative increases or decreases in the marginal utility of the various consumption goods. There are no exogenous technology (productivity) shocks in the model. There are three main results. First, the model proposes an original theoretical mechanism for generating aggregate fluctuations and sectoral comovement by using inter-sectoral and idiosyncratic shocks. This mechanism is complementary to the standard Real Business Cycle theory. Second, the model is effectively able to reproduce the main stylized facts of the U.S. economy, also those that the standard Real Business Cycle model fails to explain. Third, the model generates a false Solow Residual, even though there is no technological progress in the model. Its size and time series properties are analogous to the actual Solow Residual.

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: ftp://ftp.econ.au.dk/afn/wp/04/wp04_11.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University in its series Economics Working Papers with number 2004-11.

as
in new window

Length: 36
Date of creation: 29 Oct 2004
Handle: RePEc:aah:aarhec:2004-11
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.econ.au.dk/afn/

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. Bencivenga, Valerie R, 1992. "An Econometric Study of Hours and Output Variation with Preference Shocks," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(2), pages 449-471, May.
  2. Robert G. King & Sergio T. Rebelo, 2000. "Resuscitating Real Business Cycles," NBER Working Papers 7534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Greenwood, J. & Hercowitz, Z. & Krusell, P., 1996. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," RCER Working Papers 420, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  4. Neville Francis & Valerie A. Ramey, 2002. "Is the Technology-Driven Real Business Cycle Hypothesis Dead?," NBER Working Papers 8726, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Rajnish Mehra, 2006. "Recursive Competitive Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 12433, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Jeffrey R. Campbell, 1997. "Entry, Exit, Embodied Technology, and Business Cycles," NBER Working Papers 5955, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Timothy Cogley & James M. Nason, 1993. "Output dynamics in real business cycle models," Working Papers in Applied Economic Theory 93-10, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
  8. Robert J. Hodrick & Edward Prescott, 1981. "Post-War U.S. Business Cycles: An Empirical Investigation," Discussion Papers 451, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  9. Francesco Busato & Bruno Chiarini, 2004. "Market and underground activities in a two-sector dynamic equilibrium model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(4), pages 831-861, May.
  10. Kevin Hoover & Kevin Salyer, 1998. "Technology Shocks or Coloured Noise? Why real-business-cycle models cannot explain actual business cycles," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 299-327.
  11. Huffman, Gregory W. & Wynne, Mark A., 1995. "The role of intratemporal adjustment costs in a multi-sector economy," Working Papers 9508, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
  12. Jonas Fisher, 2004. "Technology Shocks Matter," Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings 14, Econometric Society.
  13. Long, John B, Jr & Plosser, Charles I, 1983. "Real Business Cycles," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(1), pages 39-69, February.
  14. Horvath, Michael, 2000. "Sectoral shocks and aggregate fluctuations," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 69-106, February.
  15. Jess Benhabib & Richard Rogerson & Randall Wright, 1991. "Homework in macroeconomics: household production and aggregate fluctuations," Staff Report 135, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  16. Andreas Hornstein & Jack Praschnik, 1997. "Intermediate inputs and sectoral comovement in the business cycle," Working Paper 97-06, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
  17. Lucas, Robert E., 1977. "Understanding business cycles," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 7-29, January.
  18. Blanchard, Olivier Jean & Quah, Danny, 1989. "The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 655-673, September.
  19. Judd, John P & Trehan, Bharat, 1995. "The Cyclical Behavior of Prices: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 27(3), pages 789-797, August.
  20. King, Robert G. & Plosser, Charles I. & Rebelo, Sergio T., 1988. "Production, growth and business cycles : II. New directions," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 309-341.
  21. King, Robert G. & Plosser, Charles I. & Rebelo, Sergio T., 1988. "Production, growth and business cycles : I. The basic neoclassical model," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 195-232.
  22. Jeffrey R. Campbell, 1997. "Computational Appendix to Entry, Exit, Embodied Technology, and Business Cycles," Technical Appendices campbell98, Review of Economic Dynamics.
  23. Craig Burnside & Martin Eichenbaum & Sergio Rebelo, 1995. "Capital Utilization and Returns to Scale," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1995, Volume 10, pages 67-124 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Andreas Hornstein, 2000. "The business cycle and industry comovement," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Win, pages 27-48.
  25. Uhlig, H.F.H.V.S., 1995. "A toolkit for analyzing nonlinear dynamic stochastic models easily," Discussion Paper 1995-97, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  26. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2003. "What Happens After a Technology Shock?," NBER Working Papers 9819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. Charles L. Evans, 1991. "Productivity shocks and real business cycles," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 91-22, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  28. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1982. "Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1345-1370, November.
  29. Laurence Ball & N. Gregory Mankiw, 1994. "A Sticky-Price Manifesto," NBER Working Papers 4677, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  30. Backus, David K & Kehoe, Patrick J, 1992. "International Evidence of the Historical Properties of Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 864-888, September.
  31. Guo, Jang-Ting & Sturzenegger, Federico, 1998. "Crazy Explanations of International Business Cycles," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(1), pages 111-133, February.
  32. Susanto Basu, 1998. "Technology and business cycles; how well do standard models explain the facts?," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 42(Jun), pages 207-269.
  33. Jovanovic, Boyan, 1991. "Coordination and Spillovers," Working Papers 91-65, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
  34. George W. Stadler, 1994. "Real Business Cycles," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(4), pages 1750-1783, December.
  35. Marianne Baxter & Robert G. King, 1991. "Productive externalities and business cycles," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 53, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
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:aah:aarhec:2004-11. 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: ()

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.