IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/nasm04/96.html

Do Technology Shocks Drive Hours Up or Down?

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Rossi
  • Elena Pesavento

Abstract

This paper analyzes the robustness of the estimate of a positive productivity shock on hours to the presence of a possible unit root in hours. Estimations in levels or in first differences provide opposite conclusions. We rely on an agnostic procedure in which the researcher does not have to choose between a specification in levels or in first differences. The method uses alternative approximations based on local-to-unity asymptotic theory and allows the lead-time of the impulse response function to be a fixed fraction of the sample size. These devices provide better approximations in small samples and give confidence bands that have better coverage properties at medium and long horizons than existing methods. We find that a positive productivity shock has a negative effect on hours, as in Francis and Ramey (2001), but the effect is much more short-lived, and disappears after two quarters. The effect becomes positive at business cycle frequencies, as in Christiano et al. (2003)

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Rossi & Elena Pesavento, 2004. "Do Technology Shocks Drive Hours Up or Down?," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 96, Econometric Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/esNASM04/up.22408.1074020661.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Serena Ng & Pierre Perron, 2001. "LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1519-1554, November.
    3. Graham Elliott & Michael Jansson & Elena Pesavento, 2005. "Optimal Power for Testing Potential Cointegrating Vectors With Known Parameters for Nonstationarity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 34-48, January.
    4. Elliott, Graham & Stock, James H., 2001. "Confidence intervals for autoregressive coefficients near one," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 155-181, July.
    5. Kilian, Lutz & Chang, Pao-Li, 2000. "How accurate are confidence intervals for impulse responses in large VAR models?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 299-307, December.
    6. Elliott, Graham & Jansson, Michael, 2003. "Testing for unit roots with stationary covariates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 75-89, July.
    7. John Shea, 1999. "What Do Technology Shocks Do?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1998, volume 13, pages 275-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Elliott, Graham & Rothenberg, Thomas J & Stock, James H, 1996. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 813-836, July.
    9. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2003. "What Happens After a Technology Shock?," NBER Working Papers 9819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Stock, James H., 1991. "Confidence intervals for the largest autoregressive root in U.S. macroeconomic time series," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 435-459, December.
    11. Jordi Gali, 1999. "Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 249-271, March.
    12. Elena Pesavento & Barbara Rossi, 2006. "Small‐sample confidence intervals for multivariate impulse response functions at long horizons," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1135-1155, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gil-Alana, Luis Alberiko & Moreno, Antonio, 2009. "Technology Shocks And Hours Worked: A Fractional Integration Perspective," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(5), pages 580-604, November.
    2. Neville Francis & Michael T. Owyang & Jennifer E. Roush & Riccardo DiCecio, 2014. "A Flexible Finite-Horizon Alternative to Long-Run Restrictions with an Application to Technology Shocks," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(4), pages 638-647, October.
    3. Neville Francis & Michael T. Owyang & Jennifer E. Roush, 2005. "A Flexible Finite-Horizon Identification of Technology Shocks," International Finance Discussion Papers 832, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    4. Ghent, Andra, 2006. "Comparing Models of Macroeconomic Fluctuations: How Big Are the Differences?," MPRA Paper 180, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Cristiano Cantore & Miguel León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2014. "Shocking Stuff: Technology, Hours, And Factor Substitution," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 108-128, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbara Rossi & Elena Pesavento, 2006. "Small-sample confidence intervals for multivariate impulse response functions at long horizons," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1135-1155.
    2. Pesavento, Elena & Rossi, Barbara, 2005. "Do Technology Shocks Drive Hours Up Or Down? A Little Evidence From An Agnostic Procedure," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 478-488, September.
    3. Giancarlo Corsetti & Luca Dedola & Sylvain Leduc, 2008. "Productivity, External Balance, and Exchange Rates: Evidence on the Transmission Mechanism among G7 Countries," NBER Chapters, in: NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2006, pages 117-194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin S. Eichenbaum & Robert J. Vigfusson, 2003. "How do Canadian hours worked respond to a technology shock?," International Finance Discussion Papers 774, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    5. 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, vol. 85(Nov), pages 53-66.
    6. Firouz Fallahi & Gabriel Rodríguez, 2011. "Persistence of Unemployment in the Canadian Provinces," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 34(4), pages 438-458, October.
    7. Sebastian Fossati, 2013. "Unit root testing with stationary covariates and a structural break in the trend function," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 368-384, May.
    8. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2004. "The Response of Hours to a Technology Shock: Evidence Based on Direct Measures of Technology," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 381-395, 04/05.
    9. Ossama Mikhail, 2005. "What Happens After A Technology Shock? A Bayesian Perspective," Macroeconomics 0510016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin S. Eichenbaum & Robert J. Vigfusson, 2003. "What happens after a technology shock?," International Finance Discussion Papers 768, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    11. Hikaru Saijo, 2019. "Technology Shocks and Hours Revisited: Evidence from Household Data," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 31, pages 347-362, January.
    12. Domenico J. Marchetti & Francesco Nucci, 2007. "Pricing Behavior and the Response of Hours to Productivity Shocks," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(7), pages 1587-1611, October.
    13. Elliott, Graham & Pesavento, Elena, 2006. "On the Failure of Purchasing Power Parity for Bilateral Exchange Rates after 1973," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(6), pages 1405-1430, September.
    14. Gert Peersman & Roland Straub, 2009. "Technology Shocks And Robust Sign Restrictions In A Euro Area Svar," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(3), pages 727-750, August.
    15. Ulrich K. Müller & Mark W. Watson, 2020. "Low-Frequency Analysis of Economic Time Series," Working Papers 2020-13, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    16. Neville Francis & Michael T. Owyang & Jennifer E. Roush & Riccardo DiCecio, 2014. "A Flexible Finite-Horizon Alternative to Long-Run Restrictions with an Application to Technology Shocks," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(4), pages 638-647, October.
    17. Fossati, Sebastian, 2012. "Covariate unit root tests with good size and power," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3070-3079.
    18. Nikolay Gospodinov & Alex Maynard & Elena Pesavento, 2011. "Sensitivity of Impulse Responses to Small Low-Frequency Comovements: Reconciling the Evidence on the Effects of Technology Shocks," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 455-467, October.
    19. Maxwell L. King & Sivagowry Sriananthakumar, 2015. "Point Optimal Testing: A Survey of the Post 1987 Literature," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 5/15, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    20. Athanasia Gavala & Nikolay Gospodinov & Deming Jiang, 2006. "Forecasting volatility," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 381-400.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • E32 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - Business Fluctuations; Cycles

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:ecm:nasm04:96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.