IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Do Technology Shocks Drive Hours Up or Down? A Little Evidence from an Agnostic Procedure

  • Elena Pesavento
  • Barbara Rossi

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. 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).

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: http://economics.emory.edu/home/assets/workingpapers/pesavento_03_26_paper.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta) in its series Emory Economics with number 0326.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Nov 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:emo:wp2003:0326
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://economics.emory.edu/home/journals/
Email:


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. Gali, J., 1996. "Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations?," Working Papers 96-28, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
  2. 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.
  3. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2003. "What Happens After a Technology Shock?," NBER Working Papers 9819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Graham Elliott & Thomas J. Rothenberg & James H. Stock, 1992. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," NBER Technical Working Papers 0130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. James H. Stock, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for the Largest Autoresgressive Root in U.S. Macroeconomic Time Series," NBER Technical Working Papers 0105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Graham Elliott & Michael Jansson, . "Testing for Unit Roots with Stationary Covariates," Economics Working Papers 2000-6, School of Economics and Management, University of Aarhus.
  11. 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.
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:emo:wp2003:0326. 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: (Sue Mialon)

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.