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

On the robust effects of technology shocks on hours worked and output

We analyze the effects of neutral and investment-specific technology shocks on hours and output. Long cycles in hours are captured in a variety of ways. Hours robustly fall in response to neutral shocks and robustly increase in response to investment specific shocks. The percentage of the variance of hours (output) explained by neutral shocks is small (large); the opposite is true for investment specific shocks. ‘News shocks’ are uncorrelated with the estimated technology shocks.

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://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1013.pdf
File Function: Whole Paper
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra in its series Economics Working Papers with number 1013.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Nov 2006
Date of revision: Feb 2008
Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1013
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.econ.upf.edu/

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. Harald Uhlig, 2004. "Do Technology Shocks Lead to a Fall in Total Hours Worked?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 361-371, 04/05.
  2. Beaudry, Paul & Portier, Franck, 2003. "Stock Prices, News and Economic Fluctuations," IDEI Working Papers 158, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  3. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2003. "What happens after a technology shock?," International Finance Discussion Papers 768, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  4. Robert J. Vigfusson, 2004. "The delayed response to a technology shock: a flexible price explanation," International Finance Discussion Papers 810, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  5. Susanto Basu & John Fernald & Miles Kimball, 2002. "Are Technology Improvements Contractionary?," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1986, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  6. Fabio Canova & David López-Salido & Claudio Michelacci, 2007. "The labor market effects of technology shocks," Banco de Espa�a Working Papers 0719, Banco de Espa�a.
  7. Galí, Jordi, 2005. "Trends in Hours, Balanced Growth and the Role of Technology in the Business Cycle," CEPR Discussion Papers 4915, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Valerie A. Ramey & Neville Francis, 2007. "Measures of Per Capita Hours and their Implications for the Technology-Hours Debate," 2007 Meeting Papers 314, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  9. Diego Comin & Mark Gertler, 2006. "Medium-Term Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 523-551, June.
  10. Luca Dedola & Stefano Neri, 2006. "What does a technology shock do? A VAR analysis with model-based sign restrictions," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 607, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
  11. Jon Faust & Eric M. Leeper, 1994. "When do long-run identifying restrictions give reliable results?," Working Paper 94-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
  12. Christopher J. Erceg & Luca Guerrieri & Christopher Gust, 2005. "Can Long-Run Restrictions Identify Technology Shocks?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(6), pages 1237-1278, December.
  13. Ellen R. McGrattan, 2006. "Real business cycles," Staff Report 370, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  14. Giordani, Paolo, 2004. "An alternative explanation of the price puzzle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(6), pages 1271-1296, September.
  15. Jonas D. M. Fisher, 2002. "Technology shocks matter," Working Paper Series WP-02-14, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  16. Jordi Galí & Mark Gertler & J. David López-Salido, 2007. "Markups, Gaps, and the Welfare Costs of Business Fluctuations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 44-59, November.
  17. Charles L. Evans, 1991. "Productivity shocks and real business cycles," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 91-22, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  18. Jesús Fernández-Villaverde & Juan F. Rubio-Ramirez & Thomas J. Sargent & Mark Watson, 2006. "A,B,C's (and D's)'s for Understanding VARS," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000646, UCLA Department of Economics.
  19. V. V. Chari & Patrick J. Kehoe & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2004. "A Critique of Structural VARs Using Real Business Cycle Theory," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000518, UCLA Department of Economics.
  20. Greenwood, J. & Yorukoglu, M., 1996. "1974," RCER Working Papers 429, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  21. 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.
  22. Lutz Kilian, 1999. "Finite-Sample Properties of Percentile and Percentile-t Bootstrap Confidence Intervals for Impulse Responses," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 652-660, November.
  23. Galí, Jordi & Rabanal, Pau, 2004. "Technology Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations: How Well Does the RBC Model Fit Post-War US Data?," CEPR Discussion Papers 4522, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  24. Jordi Gali & Pau Rabanal, 2004. "Technology Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations: How Well Does the RBS Model Fit Postwar U.S. Data?," NBER Working Papers 10636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
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:upf:upfgen:1013. 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.