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

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

Author Info

  • 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.

Download Info

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://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/2004-10.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Rutgers University, Department of Economics in its series Departmental Working Papers with number 200410.

as
in new window

Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 09 Aug 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200410
Contact details of provider: Postal: New Jersey Hall - 75 Hamilton Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1248
Phone: (732) 932-7482
Fax: (732) 932-7416
Web page: http://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/rutgers-wplist.html
More information through EDIRC

Keywords: limited participation; segmented markets; hump-shaped delayed response; monetary policy shocks; persistence;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
  • E52 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit - - - Monetary Policy

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1992. "Liquidity effects and the monetary transmission mechanism," Staff Report 150, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  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 733-48, September.
  4. David B. Gordon & Eric M. Leeper, 1992. "The dynamic impacts of monetary policy: an exercise in tentative identification," Working Paper 92-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
  5. 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.
  6. Bernanke, Ben S. & Mihov, Ilian, 1995. "Measuring Monetary Policy," Economics Series 10, Institute for Advanced Studies.
  7. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles Evans, 1994. "The effects of monetary policy shocks: evidence from the Flow of Funds," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 94-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  8. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1990. "Liquidity and interest rates," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 237-264, April.
  9. Occhino, Filippo, 2008. "Market Segmentation And The Response Of The Real Interest Rate To Monetary Policy Shocks," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(05), pages 591-618, November.
  10. 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.
  11. Fuerst, Timothy S., 1992. "Liquidity, loanable funds, and real activity," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 3-24, February.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Grossman, Sanford & Weiss, Laurence, 1983. "A Transactions-Based Model of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(5), pages 871-80, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

The CitEc project has not yet found citations to this item.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Access and download statistics

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200410. 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.