IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rut/rutres/200410.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Segmentation and the 'Hump-Shaped' Response of Output to Monetary Policy Shocks

Author

Listed:
  • Filippo Occhino

    (Rutgers University)

Abstract

After a contractionary monetary policy shock, aggregate output decreases over time, with a trough after four to eight quarters. In a benchmark full participation model, the effect of a contractionary shock on output is strongest in the impact period and decays over time. When some households do not participate in financial markets, however, the shock has an additional liquidity effect, it increases the real interest rate, and it decreases the growth rate of the participants' labor supply. As a result, the trough of the equilibrium aggregate labor and output response occurs after several quarters. The model is able to replicate the sign, the magnitude and the persistence of the responses of output, money, and interest rates. Abstract: In the data, after a contractionary monetary policy shock aggregate output decreases over time, with a trough after four to eight quarters. This paper replicates the `hump-shaped' response of output with a segmented markets model where part of the households are excluded from financial markets. A contractionary monetary policy shock is modeled as an unanticipated increase in the short-term nominal interest rate. Since households and firms need cash-in-advance to purchase consumption and hire labor, an increase in the nominal interest rate discourages the households' consumption demand and labor supply, and the firms' labor demand. In a benchmark full participation model, the effect is strongest in the impact period, and decays over time. When markets are segmented, however, the shock has an additional liquidity effect, increasing the real interest rate above fundamentals, and decreasing the growth rate of the participants' labor supply. As a result, the response of the aggregate labor and output has a trough several quarters after the shock. The model is able to replicate the sign, the magnitude and the persistence of the responses of output, money, prices and interest rates. It can generate a positive response of the real interest rate together with a negative response of the output growth rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Filippo Occhino, 2004. "Market Segmentation and the 'Hump-Shaped' Response of Output to Monetary Policy Shocks," Departmental Working Papers 200410, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sas.rutgers.edu/virtual/snde/wp/2004-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christiano, Lawrence J & Eichenbaum, Martin & Evans, Charles, 1996. "The Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks: Evidence from the Flow of Funds," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(1), pages 16-34, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Cooley, Thomas F & Hansen, Gary D, 1989. "The Inflation Tax in a Real Business Cycle Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 733-748, September.
    4. Uhlig, Harald, 2005. "What are the effects of monetary policy on output? Results from an agnostic identification procedure," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 381-419, March.
    5. Eric M. Leeper & Christopher A. Sims & Tao Zha, 1996. "What Does Monetary Policy Do?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 27(2), pages 1-78.
    6. Strongin, Steven, 1995. "The identification of monetary policy disturbances explaining the liquidity puzzle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 463-497, June.
    7. Occhino, Filippo, 2008. "Market Segmentation And The Response Of The Real Interest Rate To Monetary Policy Shocks," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 591-618, November.
    8. Christiano, Lawrence J & Eichenbaum, Martin, 1992. "Liquidity Effects and the Monetary Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 346-353, May.
    9. Gordon, David B & Leeper, Eric M, 1994. "The Dynamic Impacts of Monetary Policy: An Exercise in Tentative Identification," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1228-1247, December.
    10. Ben S. Bernanke & Ilian Mihov, 1998. "Measuring Monetary Policy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(3), pages 869-902.
    11. Fuerst, Timothy S., 1992. "Liquidity, loanable funds, and real activity," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 3-24, February.
    12. Grossman, Sanford & Weiss, Laurence, 1983. "A Transactions-Based Model of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(5), pages 871-880, December.
    13. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1990. "Liquidity and interest rates," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 237-264, April.
    14. Filippo Occhino, 2004. "Modeling the Response of Money and Interest Rates to Monetary Policy Shocks: A Segmented Markets Approach," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 7(1), pages 181-197, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Filippo Occhino, 2004. "Markets Segmentation and the Real Interest Rate Response to Monetary Policy Shocks," Departmental Working Papers 200403, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    2. Landon-Lane, John & Occhino, Filippo, 2008. "Bayesian estimation and evaluation of the segmented markets friction in equilibrium monetary models," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 444-461, March.
    3. Filippo Occhino, 2001. "Monetary Policy Shocks in an Economy with Segmented Markets," Departmental Working Papers 200108, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    4. John Landon-Lane & Filippo Occhino, 2005. "Estimation and Evaluation of a Segmented Markets Monetary Model," Departmental Working Papers 200505, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    5. Cook, David, 1999. "The liquidity effect and money demand," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 377-390, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Zeno Enders, 2020. "Heterogeneous Consumers, Segmented Asset Markets and the Real Effects of Monetary Policy," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(628), pages 1031-1056.
    8. Uhlig, Harald, 2005. "What are the effects of monetary policy on output? Results from an agnostic identification procedure," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 381-419, March.
    9. Soyoung Kim, 2013. "Vector autoregressive models for macroeconomic policy analysis," Chapters, in: Nigar Hashimzade & Michael A. Thornton (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Empirical Macroeconomics, chapter 23, pages 555-572, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. W. Douglas McMillin & William D. Lastrapes, 2001. "Cross-Country Variation in the Liquidity Effect," Departmental Working Papers 2001-04, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    11. Fabio Canova & Joaquim Pires Pina, 1998. "Monetary policy misspecification in VAR models," Economics Working Papers 420, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Sep 1999.
    12. Auray, Stéphane, 2009. "Consommation, effet de substitution intertemporelle et formation des habitudes," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 85(4), pages 437-473, décembre.
    13. Mohamed Douch, 2010. "The Macroeconomic Effects of Monetary Policy and Financial Crisis," Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cankaya University, Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 1(7), pages 1-35, May.
    14. Schabert, Andreas, 2001. "Interest Rate Policy and the Price Puzzle in a Quantitative Business Cycle Model," Economics Series 95, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    15. Dave Andolfatto & Scott Hendry & Kevin Moran, 2004. "Labour markets, liquidity, and monetary policy regimes," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 392-420, May.
    16. Dedola, Luca & Lippi, Francesco, 2005. "The monetary transmission mechanism: Evidence from the industries of five OECD countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1543-1569, August.
    17. Evans, Charles L. & Marshall, David A., 1998. "Monetary policy and the term structure of nominal interest rates: Evidence and theory," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 53-111, December.
    18. Karamé, Frédéric & Patureau, Lise & Sopraseuth, Thepthida, 2008. "Limited participation and exchange rate dynamics: Does theory meet the data?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 1041-1087, April.
    19. Benjamin Keen, 2009. "Output, Inflation, and Interest Rates in an Estimated Optimizing Model of Monetary Policy," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 12(2), pages 327-343, April.
    20. Benjamin Kim & Noor Ghazali, 1998. "The Liquidity Effect of Money Shocks on Short-Term Interest Rates: Some International Evidence," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 49-63.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    limited participation; segmented markets; hump-shaped delayed response; monetary policy shocks; persistence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E52 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit - - - Monetary Policy

    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:rut:rutres:200410. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/derutus.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.