IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

What Happens After a Technology Shock?

  • Lawrence J. Christiano
  • Martin Eichenbaum
  • Robert Vigfusson

We provide empirical evidence that a positive shock to technology drives per capita hours worked, consumption, investment, average productivity and output up. This evidence contrasts sharply with the results reported in a large and growing literature that argues, on the basis of aggregate data, that per capita hours worked fall after a positive technology shock. We argue that the difference in results primarily reflects specification error in the way that the literature models the low-frequency component of hours worked.

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: no

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 9819.

in new window

Date of creation: Jul 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:9819
Note: EFG LS
Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
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. Gali, Jordi & Lopez-Salido, J. David & Valles, Javier, 2003. "Technology shocks and monetary policy: assessing the Fed's performance," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 723-743, May.
  2. Caner, Mehmet & Kilian, Lutz, 2000. "Size Distortions Of Tests Of The Null Hypothesis Of Stationarity: Evidence And Implications For The PPP Debate," CEPR Discussion Papers 2425, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Jonas Fisher, 2004. "Technology Shocks Matter," Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings 14, Econometric Society.
  4. 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.
  5. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles Evans, 2001. "Nominal rigidities and the dynamic effects of a shock to monetary policy," Working Paper 0107, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
  6. Christiano, Lawrence J & Eichenbaum, Martin, 1992. "Current Real-Business-Cycle Theories and Aggregate Labor-Market Fluctuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 430-50, June.
  7. Lawrence J. Christiano & Terry J. Fitzgerald, 1999. "The Band pass filter," Working Paper 9906, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    • Lawrence J. Christiano & Terry J. Fitzgerald, 2003. "The Band Pass Filter," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(2), pages 435-465, 05.
  8. Jinyong Hahn & Jerry Hausman & Guido Kuersteiner, 2005. "Bias Corrected Instrumental Variables Estimation for Dynamic Panel Models with Fixed E¤ects," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2005-024, Boston University - Department of Economics.
  9. Boldrin, M. & Christiano, L.J. & Fischer, J.D.M., 1996. "Asset Pricing Lessons for Modeling Business Cycles," Papers 268, Banca Italia - Servizio di Studi.
  10. John Shea, 1998. "What Do Technology Shocks Do?," NBER Working Papers 6632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Matthew Shapiro & Mark Watson, 1988. "Sources of Business Cycles Fluctuations," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1988, Volume 3, pages 111-156 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Galí, Jordi, 1996. "Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations?," CEPR Discussion Papers 1499, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  13. Christiano, Lawrence J. & Eichenbaum, Martin & Evans, Charles L., 1999. "Monetary policy shocks: What have we learned and to what end?," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 65-148 Elsevier.
  14. Leybourne, S J & McCabe, B P M, 1994. "A Consistent Test for a Unit Root," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 12(2), pages 157-66, April.
  15. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1989. "Unit roots in real GNP: do we know, and do we care?," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 18, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  16. Robert G. King & Charles I. Plosser & James H. Stock & Mark W. Watson, 1991. "Stochastic trends and economic fluctuations," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 91-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  17. Sims, Christopher A & Stock, James H & Watson, Mark W, 1990. "Inference in Linear Time Series Models with Some Unit Roots," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 113-44, January.
  18. DeJong, David N, et al, 1992. "Integration versus Trend Stationarity in Time Series," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 423-33, March.
  19. Blundell, R. & Bond, S., 1995. "Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models," Economics Papers 104, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  20. James H. Stock & Motohiro Yogo, 2002. "Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression," NBER Technical Working Papers 0284, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Lawrence J. Christiano & Lars Ljungqvist, 1987. "Money does Granger-cause output in the bivariate output-money relation," Staff Report 108, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  22. Kwiatkowski, D. & Phillips, P.C.B. & Schmidt, P., 1990. "Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of Unit Root : How Sure are we that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root?," Papers 8905, Michigan State - Econometrics and Economic Theory.
  23. Jordi Gali & Mark Gertler & J. David Lopez-Salido, 2002. "Markups, Gaps, and the Welfare Costs of Business Fluctuations," NBER Working Papers 8850, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Elliott, Graham & Jansson, Michael, 2002. "Testing for Unit Roots with Stationary Covariates," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt4v35s2gv, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  25. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
  26. repec:cup:etheor:v:11:y:1995:i:5:p:1148-71 is not listed on IDEAS
  27. Bruce E. Hansen, 1995. "Rethinking the Univariate Approach to Unit Root Testing: Using Covariates to Increase Power," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 300., Boston College Department of Economics.
  28. Martin S. Eichenbaum & Kenneth J. Singleton, 1986. "Do Equilibrium Real Business Cycle Theories Explain Post-War U.S. Business Cycles?," NBER Working Papers 1932, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  29. 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.
  30. Lawrence J. Christiano & Richard M. Todd, 1996. "Time to plan and aggregate fluctuations," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Win, pages 14-27.
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:nbr:nberwo:9819. 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.