UNIFAMILIAR
13. RESULTADO DE LA VALORACIÓN 14. ANEXO: TABLA DE CÁLCULOS
In this paper, we considered efficiency wages along the gift-exchange argument in an otherwise standard DSGE model, by allowing effort of the workers to depend on work-ers’ own wage, the average alternative wage and the employment rate in the economy (Akerlof (1982), Danthine and Donaldson (1990)). In addition sticky nominal wage setting is introduced in order to compare the fair wage model with the standard New Keynesian model with sticky price and wages. Contrary to the previous studies which
5See Gali, Gertler, and Lopez-Salido (2005) for a discussion of the welfare costs of cyclical fluctuations in the output gap, and Blanchard and Gali (2005) for a discussion of the monetary policy implications.
selected an effort function implying constant effort over the business cycle, our effort specification is sufficiently general to allow effort to vary pro-cyclically. We showed that, when effort is variable, wage fluctuations are partially compensated by the en-dogenous effort fluctuations, so that the sensitivity of the marginal cost to output and employment variations is decreased. This mechanism decreases the need for nominal price stickiness to explain the observed low elasticity of inflation to output variations.
However, the fitted nominal price stickiness in the baseline fair-wage model remains very high, basically because of the productivity shocks that have a direct impact on the marginal cost and this shock(drop s) would therefore lead to big price effects in a model with more flexible prices. Note however, that this result is in line with evidence from SVAR exercises claiming that prices react relative stronger to productivity shocks than to demand shocks (Christiano, Eichenbaum, and Vigfusson 2003).
In terms of overall empirical fit, the fair wage model outperforms the standard New Keynesian model as estimated in Smets and Wouters (2003) in which the real wage is determined by the marginal rate of substitution between leisure and consumption.
Two extensions of the fair wage model have been considered. The first one follows the argument of Collard and de la Croix (2000) and Danthine and Kurmann (2004), by considering lagged wages in the effort specification. In this set-up, effort does not only depend on wage comparisons with contemporaneous outside wage opportunities but also on comparisons with the workers’ own lagged wage. Estimates of this extended effort specification in our model does not indicate an important role for this additional real wage rigidity argument. The second extension is based on Danthine and Kurmann (2005) and argues for a rent sharing argument in the effort specification. Here, workers effort decision depends also on the fair treatment within the firm in the sense that workers expect to share in the productivity gains that are realized within the firm. Our estimation results confirm that there is some role for internal rent sharing.
The importance of the labor market structure for welfare analysis and monetary policy conclusions was already stressed recently by Levin et al. (2005) within the context of a New Keynesian model. Our results illustrate again the importance of the labor market assumptions for policy conclusions. In particular, our conclusions resemble the find-ings of Blanchard and Gali (2005) in showing the potential challenging consequences of real wage rigidities for monetary policy.
Efficiency wage considerations are potentially an important mechanism to understand wage rigidity and persistent employment shocks. The effort function in our specifica-tion of the household problem should be derived from optimizing behavior of utility maximizing agents along the lines of Danthine and Kurmann (2005). More research is needed to evaluate the consistency between micro and macro estimates of these effi-ciency wage considerations.
References
Abowd, John, Robert Creecy, and Francis Kramarz. 2002. “Computing Person and Firm Effects Using Linked Longitudinal Employer-Employee Data.” Technical
Re-port, Cornell University.
Akerlof, George. 1982. “Labor contracts as partial gift exchange.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 97:543–569.
Basu, Susanto. 1996. “Procyclical Productivity: Increasing Returns or Cyclical Uti-lization?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (3): 719–51 (August).
B´enassy, Jean-Pascal. 2004. “Competitiveness, Market Power and Price Stickiness: A Paradox and a Resolution.” CEPREMAP.
Bewley, Truman. 1998. “Why not cut pay?” European Economic Review 42:459–490.
Blanchard, Olivier, and Jordi Gali. 2005. “Real Wage Rigidities and the New Keyne-sian Model.” MIT.
. 2006. “A New Keynesian Model with Unemployment.” MIT.
Blanchflower, David G, Andrew J Oswald, and Mario D Garrett. 1990. “Insider Power in Wage Determination.” Economica 57 (226): 143–70 (May).
Burnside, Craig, Martin Eichenbaum, and Sergio Rebelo. 1993. “Labor Hoarding and the Business Cycle.” Journal of Political Economy 101 (2): 245–73 (April).
Calvo, Guillermo. 1983. “Staggered Prices in a Utility-maximizing Framework.” Jour-nal of Monetary Economics 12:383–398.
Canzoneri, Matthew, Robert Cumby, and Behzad Diba. 2004. “The cost of nominal intertia in NNS models.” NBER working paper 10889.
Christiano, Lawrence J., Martin Eichenbaum, and Robert Vigfusson. 2003, July. “What Happens After a Technology Shock?” Nber working papers 9819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Collard, Fabrice, and David de la Croix. 2000. “Gift exchange and the business cycle:
the fair wage strikes back.” Review of Economic Dynamics 3 (1): 166–193.
Danthine, Jean-Pierre, and John Donaldson. 1990. “Efficiency wages and the business cycle puzzle.” European Economic Review 34:1275–1301.
Danthine, Jean-Pierre, and Andr´e Kurmann. 2004. “Fair wages in a New Keynesian model of the business cycle.” Review of Economic Dynamics 7 (1): 107–142.
. 2005. “The Macroeconomic Consequences of Reciprocity in Labor Relations.”
Univ Lausanne.
de la Croix, David, and Philippe Michel. 2002. A Theory of Economic Growth: Dynamics and Policy in Overlapping Generations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gali, Jordi, Mark Gertler, and J. David Lopez-Salido. 2001. “European inflation dy-namics.” European Economic Review 45 (7): 1237–1270.
. 2005, May. “Markups, Gaps, and the Welfare Costs of Business Fluctuations.”
Economics working papers 836, Department of Economics and Business, Univer-sitat Pompeu Fabra.
Levin, Andrew T., Alexei Onatski, John C. Williams, and Noah Williams. 2005, Au-gust. “Monetary Policy Under Uncertainty in Micro-Founded Macroeconometric Models.” Nber working papers 11523, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Shapiro, Carl, and Joseph E Stiglitz. 1984. “Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device.” American Economic Review 74 (3): 433–44 (June).
Smets, Frank, and Rafael Wouters. 2003. “An Estimated Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model of the Euro Area.” Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (5): 1123–1175.
. 2005. “Comparing shocks and frictions in US and euro area business cycles:
a Bayesian DSGE Approach.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 20 (2): 161–183.
. 2006. “Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Ap-proach.” American Economic Review, p. forthcoming.
Solow, Robert. 1979. “Another possible source of wage stickiness.” Journal of Macroe-conomics 1:79–82.
Yun, Tack. 1996. “Nominal price rigidity, money supply endogeneity, and business cycles.” Journal of Monetary Economics 2-3:345–370.
A Proof of Proposition 3
Loglinearizing price equations around the steady state (12) and (14) yield:
Pˆt = (1−ξp)ˆp⋆t +κ ˆPt−1 (21) Xˆt = (1−κ)ˆp⋆t +κ ˆXt−1
which imply that ˆPt =Xˆt since their initial conditions are the same.
Loglinearizing the optimal price equation (11) yields:
(1−αθ) The output equation leads to:
α(ˆet+Nˆt) =α(1+ψΩ)Nˆt =Yˆt− 1
1−θ(Xˆt−Pˆt) =Yˆt, (24) Hence, the output changes linked to the difference between ˆXt and ˆPt disappear in the linearized version of the model, reflecting that this discrepancy has only a second-order effect (stressed in the welfare analysis carried out by Canzoneri, Cumby, and Diba (2004)).
And, finally, the equilibrium on the goods market (15) together with the first-order condition (2) lead to:
We now replace ˆp⋆t and ˆp⋆t+1 by their value from (21): ˆp⋆t = (Pˆt −κ ˆPt−1)/(1−κ) and
Using the method of undetermined coefficients, we can show that the solution is of the form: i.e. Equation (16) of the main text. ρ is the stable root of
R(ρ) = a3ρ2−(a1+a2+a3)ρ+a2 =0. (26) If ψ increases, or if Ω decreases, a1 decreases, which raises price stickiness ρ through (26).
B The Loglinearized Model
There is a large part of the log-linearized benchmark Smets-Wouters model which is not affected by the efficiency wage assumption. The following linearized equations are relevant both for the benchmark Smets and Wouters (2005) New Keynesian model and for its efficiency wage variant developed in this paper. Theconsumption equation with external habit is given by
Cˆt = 1
and theinvestment equation is ˆIt = 1
1+β
βEtˆIt+1+ ˆIt−1+ϕ
Qˆt+ˆεit
where ϕ =1/S′′ where S(It/It−1)is the investment adjustment cost function incurred in the case of changes in investment. The correspondingQ equation is given by
Qˆt =πˆt+1+ˆεbt(1+h)σc
1−h −Rˆt + (1−β(1−τ))Etˆrkt+1+β(1−τ)EtQˆt+1
while thecapital accumulation equation is Kˆt = (1−τ)Kˆt−1+τ
ˆIt−1+ (1+β)1 ϕˆεIt−1
and the utilized capital is
ˆκt =Kˆt−1+ϑˆrkt
with ϑ = ϑ′(1)/ϑ′′(1), the inverse of the elasticity of of the capital utilization cost function. Theprice equation is log-linearized from the intermediate retailer FOC:
ˆ
πt = 1
1+βγp
"
β ˆπt+1+γpπˆt−1+ 1−ξp(1−βξp)
ξp 1+βγp ˆzt+ˆεpt# with ˆεpt = ρpˆεpt−1−ζpηtp−1+ηtpand ηtp an i.i.d.-Normal error term
Theglobal demand is simply the sum of consumption, investment, the cost incurred when varying capital utilization and government spending which plays actually the role of the residual
Yˆt = 1−τky−gyCˆt+τkyˆIt+ky
1
β+τ−1
+gyˆεgt with ˆεgt = ρgˆεgt−1+ηtgand ηtgan i.i.d.-Normal error term
with ky the steady state capital output ratio, gythe steady-state government spending-output ratio.
The equations relating to the production sector of the model are clearly affected by the efficiency wage assumption. However, for the four following expressions, the bench-mark Smets and Wouters (2005) linearized model and its efficiency wage are only dif-ferentiated by the presence of the effort variable ˆet. We only report the linearized ex-pressions for the efficiency wage variant.
Log-linearizing and averaging the production function of the intermediate retailer firms, one obtains
Yˆt = φ α· ˆet+Nˆt
+ (1−α) ˆκt+ˆεat
with ˆεat = ρaˆεat−1+ηat and ηta an i.i.d.-Normal error term
As discussed in section 2.2.3, all the intermediate producers share the same wage per efficient unit of labor and the same capital-efficient labor ratio. Therefore, the labor demand of the firms is log-linearized as
ˆ
wt− ˆet = ˆzt+ (1−α) ˆκt −Nˆt−ˆet+ˆεat while thedemand of capital is:
ˆrkt = ˆzt−α ˆκt −Nˆt− ˆet+ˆεat
Themarginal cost equation writes down as
ˆzt =α·(wˆt−ˆet) + (1−α) · ˆrkt −ˆεat
As expected, the wage equation is the most different one in the benchmark Smets-Wouters like model and its efficiency wage variant. Under efficiency wage, the real wage equationafter loglinearization is
ˆ
wt = 1
(1+β) [βEtwˆt+1+wˆt−1+βEtπˆt+1+γwπˆt−1−(1+βγw)πˆt] +(1−βξw) (1−ξw)
ξw(1+β) (1−ψ)
ˆεat +ˆzt−(1−α) ˆet+Nˆt− ˆκt−(1−ψ)wˆt
(27a) instead of
ˆ
wt = 1
(1+β) [βEtwˆt+1+wˆt−1+βEtπˆt+1+γwπˆt−1−(1+βγw)πˆt] +(1−βξw) (1−ξw)
ξw(1+β)
σlNˆt + 1
1−h Cˆt−Cˆt−1−wˆt+ˆεwt
in the benchmark model. One can note that, from the labor demand equation, the term into square brackets in the (27a) expression can be re-written as
εat + ˆzt−(1−α) ˆet+Nˆt−ˆκt−(1−ψ)wˆt
=wˆtψ−ˆet
and the RHS corresponds exactly to the log-linearized modified Solow condition (7).
This means that the Solow condition holds in the long run or if ξw becomes close to zero. In comparison to the wage equation of the benchmark model, we also remark that the wage mark-up shock ˆεwt is now replaced by the effort shock ˆεe ft , both being ARMA(1,1) processes.
After linearization and averaging, the log-linearized effort in the efficiency wage ver-sion of the model equation writes down as
ˆet =wˆt·(1−φ3) −Nˆt ·φ2′ +ˆεe ft with
φ2′ =φ2· N 1−N
1
(1−N)w
ψ
where N is the steady state employment rate and w the steady-state wage which is equal to h
θ(1−α) θα/rk1−αα i
when steady-state effort is effort is fixed at 1. Finally, the model is closed by the following empirical monetary policy reaction function
Rˆt =ρ· Rˆt−1+ (1−ρ)rππˆt +ry Yˆt−Yˆtp
+r∆y Yˆt−Yˆtp− Yˆt−1−Yˆtp−
1
+ˆεrt
with ˆεrt =ρrˆεrt−1+ηrt and ηrt an i.i.d.-Normal error term
B.1 Loglinearizing the Wage Equation
Given the objective equation (19), we may compute the FOC for a maximum:
Et Loglinearizing this FOC around the steady state, we get
(1−ψ)Wˆt⋆(j) = (1−βξw) ·
We know that the capital-efficient labor ratio is not firm-specific and therefore drop the j index in the optimal wage equation. The latter expression may be re-written as
(1−ψ)Wˆt⋆ = (1−βξw) ·εat +Zˆt−(1−α) (ˆet+ ˆnt−ˆκt) −ψ ˆPt
+βξw(1−ψ) Wˆt⋆+1−γwπˆt Log-linearising expression (20) around steady state, one obtains that
Wˆt⋆ = Wˆt −ξwWˆt−1−γwξwπˆt−1 1−ξw
Substituting for ˆWt⋆in the optimal wage expression, we obtain after transformations ˆ
where ˆwtand ˆztare the real wage and real marginal cost in deviation from steady state.
B.2 Variants to the Effort Function
We consider here how the introduction of a reference to lagged wage and to labor productivity affects the model and its loglinearized form. Let us introduce these two further arguments in our model so that the effort function becomes
et(i) = φ1 The introduction of productivity in the effort function affects the labor demand by the intermediate producers. It is now given by
nt(i) = zt(1−α) qt(i) This is the only relation that is modified. For the rest, the FOC for capital and for wage are left unchanged. We can easily check that all the firms resetting their wage at the same period will choose the same price. Indeed, given the competitive market assumption all the firms face the same marginal cost
zt = 1
From this expression we conclude that wt(i)
et(i)+nt(i)∂et(i)
∂nt(i)
is not firm specific. Combining this information with the expression for labor demand, we can conclude that, as in the initial efficiency wage model, all the firms share the same productivity per efficient unit, which is enough to prove that intermediate producers setting wage at time t will behave similarly.
Note that combining the labor demand by the firms (30) with their optimal wage (28) for ξw →0, we obtain that
which Danthine and Kurmann (2005) denote as a modified Solow condition.
The linearized labor demand (30) expression is ˆ
Loglinearizing the effort equation (29) yields
where the steady state employment, wage and production appears. The FOC condi-tions for labor and for wage in steady state are
zα q from which we obtain the modified Solow condition
e = ∂e
∂w(i)w(i) − ∂e
∂n(i)n(i)
= φ1wψ−φ1φ5(q/N)ψ Given that the steady state real return on capital is
rk =z(1−α)q κ = 1
β+τ−1 and that the steady state productivity per efficient labor unit is
q Ne =
z(1−α) rk
1−αα
we obtain an expression for steady state wage
wψ =
Restricting effort level to be positive and equal to unity in steady state yields that the steady state wage and φ1are determined by the solution of the two equations system in two unknowns formed by the wage expression above and the modified Solow con-dition.
C Estimation Results
A limited number of structural parameters, which are very poorly identified by our estimation strategy, are fixed at standard values. The discount factor is fixed at 0.99 to reflect an average annual real rate of 4 %, the capital share in the Cobb-Douglas production function is set at 0.24, the quarterly depreciation rate is fixed at 0.025 per quarter. The share of steady-state consumption in total output is assumed to be 0.65 while the share of steady-state investment is set to 0.17. The parameter capturing the mark-up in wage setting is set to 0.5 in the benchmark standard New Keynesian model.
Table 1: Estimation Results: Benchmark vs Efficient Wage
prior benchmark eff. wage
distrib. mean s.e. mode s.e. mode s. e.
effort ψ beta 0.500 0.150 0.358 0.077
φ2′ norm 0.500 0.150 0.182 0.084
φ3 norm 0.500 0.150 0.795 0.089
φ4 norm 0.500 0.150 0.000
-φ5 norm 0.500 0.150 0.000
-other param invest. adj. cost. norm 4.000 1.500 7.397 0.983 5.590 1.038 sig. cons. utility norm 1.000 0.375 1.161 0.122 1.755 0.255
habit beta 0.700 0.100 0.771 0.034 0.445 0.064
calvo wage beta 0.750 0.050 0.773 0.041 0.780 0.045 sig. labor utility norm 2.000 0.750 2.920 0.577
calvo price beta 0.750 0.050 0.902 0.020 0.892 0.016 index. wage beta 0.500 0.150 0.398 0.125 0.427 0.114 index. price beta 0.500 0.150 0.135 0.061 0.144 0.074 calvo empl. beta 0.500 0.150 0.787 0.019 0.822 0.019 cap. util. adj. cost norm 0.300 0.100 0.432 0.089 0.357 0.096 fixed cost 1+Φ/Y norm 1.250 0.125 1.440 0.090 1.288 0.105 Taylor rule r inflation norm 1.500 0.250 1.648 0.185 1.705 0.151 r lagged int. rate beta 0.750 0.100 0.915 0.016 0.886 0.016 r output-gap norm 0.125 0.050 0.153 0.037 0.206 0.036 r d(output-gap) norm 0.125 0.050 0.147 0.025 0.164 0.028 Constants inflation norm 0.625 0.100 0.644 0.100 0.616 0.097 int. rate norm 0.625 0.100 0.618 0.080 0.610 0.084
labor norm 0.100 0.100 0.067 0.015 0.101 0.023
trend norm 0.400 0.100 0.328 0.076 0.554 0.023
shocks: AR productivity beta 0.750 0.150 0.999 0.001 0.997 0.003 risk premium beta 0.750 0.150 0.717 0.058 0.873 0.034 gov. spending beta 0.750 0.150 0.998 0.002 0.997 0.002 investment beta 0.750 0.150 0.910 0.038 0.934 0.021 interest rate beta 0.750 0.150 0.405 0.074 0.301 0.068 price mark-up beta 0.750 0.150 0.963 0.033 0.767 0.065 wage m-up/effort beta 0.750 0.150 0.961 0.012 0.968 0.012 shocks: MA investment beta 0.750 0.150 0.887 0.065 0.863 0.039 price mark-up beta 0.750 0.150 0.863 0.038 0.597 0.116 wage m-up/effort beta 0.750 0.150 0.863 0.045 0.947 0.017 shocks: CO ρag norm 0.200 0.100 0.142 0.037 0.219 0.046 shocks: SE productivity invg 0.100 2.000 0.778 0.099 0.613 0.080 risk premium invg 0.100 2.000 0.102 0.016 0.077 0.012 gov. spending invg 0.100 2.000 0.331 0.021 0.312 0.019 investment invg 0.100 2.000 0.567 0.045 0.534 0.047 interest rate invg 0.100 2.000 0.146 0.011 0.152 0.011 price mark-up invg 0.100 2.000 0.154 0.027 0.191 0.024 wage m-up/effort invg 0.100 2.000 0.160 0.021 0.184 0.019
Log data density -440.425 -432.321
Table 2: Estimation Results: Alternative Specifications eff. Wageφ4>0 eff. Wageφ5 >0 mode std. dev. mode std. dev.
effort ψ 0.364 0.074 0.350 0.093
φ2′ 0.182 0.074 0.197 0.081
φ3 0.790 0.082 0.700 0.088
φ4 -0.012 0.007 0.000
-φ5 0.000 - 0.125 0.060
other param invest. adj. cost. 5.637 1.016 5.217 1.060 sig. cons. utility 1.678 0.252 1.661 0.256
habit 0.466 0.063 0.451 0.063
calvo wage 0.783 0.043 0.782 0.039
calvo price 0.897 0.016 0.928 0.015 index. wage 0.426 0.111 0.372 0.111 index. price 0.144 0.064 0.142 0.067 calvo empl. 0.824 0.018 0.851 0.020 cap. util. adj. cost 0.349 0.095 0.333 0.097 fixed cost 1+Φ/Y 1.250 0.104 1.355 0.110 Taylor rule r inflation 1.674 0.154 1.346 0.196 r lagged int. rate 0.888 0.016 0.875 0.020 r output-gap 0.210 0.035 0.241 0.036 r d(output-gap) 0.170 0.027 0.156 0.029 Constants inflation 0.620 0.097 0.610 0.097
int. rate 0.608 0.085 0.627 0.087
labor -0.093 0.026 0.056 0.032
trend 0.566 0.025 0.547 0.019
shocks: AR productivity 0.996 0.003 0.995 0.005 risk premium 0.877 0.033 0.887 0.038 gov. spending 0.998 0.002 0.998 0.002
investment 0.933 0.020 0.937 0.020
interest rate 0.297 0.066 0.313 0.069 price mark-up 0.777 0.064 0.821 0.073 wage m-up/effort 0.965 0.013 0.966 0.011 shocks: MA investment 0.861 0.038 0.834 0.041 price mark-up 0.620 0.110 0.726 0.111 wage m-up/effort 0.940 0.021 0.941 0.020
shocks: CO ρag 0.214 0.044 0.198 0.040
shocks: SE productivity 0.649 0.084 0.685 0.096 risk premium 0.074 0.011 0.077 0.012 gov. spending 0.311 0.019 0.311 0.019
investment 0.534 0.046 0.513 0.044
interest rate 0.152 0.011 0.149 0.011 price mark-up 0.189 0.023 0.190 0.022 wage m-up/effort 0.180 0.020 0.188 0.019
Log data density -439.371 -429.441
posterior mode 331.376 325.028
Table 3: Estimation Results: Alternative Specifications
eff. Wageφ3 =1 eff. Wage diff. prior mode std. dev. mode std. dev.
effort ψ 0.234 0.061 0.305 0.001
φ′2 0.287 0.073 0.007 0.005
φ3 1.000 - 0.701 0.005
φ4 0.000 - 0.000
-φ5 0.000 - 0.000
-other param invest. adj. cost. 5.506 0.999 5.608 1.001 sig. cons. utility 1.810 0.253 1.693 0.243
habit 0.444 0.066 0.457 0.063
calvo wage 0.807 0.032 0.295 0.068
calvo price 0.883 0.018 0.896 0.018
index. wage 0.480 0.115 0.403 0.109
index. price 0.120 0.055 0.148 0.067
calvo empl. 0.829 0.017 0.818 0.021
cap. util. adj. cost 0.370 0.094 0.340 0.092 fixed cost 1+Φ/Y 1.343 0.102 1.225 0.100 Taylor rule r inflation 1.735 0.150 1.690 0.158 r lagged int. rate 0.885 0.017 0.888 0.016 r output-gap 0.205 0.037 0.204 0.035 r d(output-gap) 0.160 0.027 0.166 0.028 Constants inflation 0.613 0.097 0.617 0.097
int. rate 0.609 0.082 0.611 0.085
labor 0.099 0.028 0.096 0.024
trend 0.570 0.024 0.551 0.022
shocks: AR productivity 0.997 0.002 0.997 0.003 risk premium 0.853 0.036 0.877 0.035 gov. spending 0.997 0.002 0.998 0.002
investment 0.940 0.022 0.935 0.021
interest rate 0.307 0.068 0.298 0.067 price mark-up 0.795 0.062 0.767 0.065 wage m-up/effort 0.965 0.018 0.966 0.012 shocks: MA investment 0.880 0.037 0.856 0.041 price mark-up 0.591 0.111 0.606 0.112 wage m-up/effort 0.940 0.026 0.945 0.017
shocks: CO ρag 0.218 0.045 0.197 0.039
shocks: SE productivity 0.629 0.079 0.672 0.078 risk premium 0.081 0.012 0.076 0.012 gov. spending 0.314 0.020 0.313 0.019
investment 0.543 0.048 0.525 0.046
interest rate 0.152 0.011 0.152 0.011 price mark-up 0.181 0.023 0.193 0.022 wage m-up/effort 0.182 0.021 0.183 0.019
Log data density -428.651 -444.848
posterior mode 327.397 331.174
D Impulse Response Functions
The impulse response functions are calculated for a one standard error shock and with the model parameters evaluated at the mode of the posterior distribution.
Figure 3: Estimated impulse response function for the monetary policy shock
Note: Grey line: benchmark model. Black line: Fair wage model.
Figure 4: Estimated impulse response function for the total factor productivity shock
Note: Grey line: benchmark model. Black line: Fair wage model.
Figure 5: Estimated impulse response function for the wage mark-up and effort shock
Note: Grey line: benchmark model. Black line: Fair wage model.
Figure 6: IRF for a productivity shock with monetary policy targeting the natural ver-sus the efficient output gap
GDP
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Employment
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
nom.interest rate
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Inflation
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Note: Black line: outcome under natural output gap targeting (dotted lines represent target natural output and employment).
Grey line: outcome under efficient output gap targeting (dotted lines represent target efficient output and employment).
NATIONAL BANK OF BELGIUM - WORKING PAPERS SERIES
1. "Model-based inflation forecasts and monetary policy rules" by M. Dombrecht and R. Wouters, Research Series, February 2000.
2. "The use of robust estimators as measures of core inflation" by L. Aucremanne, Research Series, February 2000.
3. "Performances économiques des Etats-Unis dans les années nonante" by A. Nyssens, P. Butzen, P. Bisciari, Document Series, March 2000.
4. "A model with explicit expectations for Belgium" by P. Jeanfils, Research Series, March 2000.
5. "Growth in an open economy: some recent developments" by S. Turnovsky, Research Series, May 2000.
6. "Knowledge, technology and economic growth: an OECD perspective" by I. Visco, A. Bassanini, S. Scarpetta, Research Series, May 2000.
7. "Fiscal policy and growth in the context of European integration" by P. Masson, Research Series, May 2000.
8. "Economic growth and the labour market: Europe's challenge" by C. Wyplosz, Research Series, May 2000.
9. "The role of the exchange rate in economic growth: a euro-zone perspective" by R. MacDonald, Research Series, May 2000.
10. "Monetary union and economic growth" by J. Vickers, Research Series, May 2000.
11. "Politique monétaire et prix des actifs: le cas des Etats-Unis" by Q. Wibaut, Document Series, August 2000.
12. "The Belgian industrial confidence indicator: leading indicator of economic activity in the euro area?" by J.-J. Vanhaelen, L. Dresse, J. De Mulder, Document Series, November 2000.
13. "Le financement des entreprises par capital-risque" by C. Rigo, Document Series, February 2001.
14. "La nouvelle économie" by P. Bisciari, Document Series, March 2001.
15. "De kostprijs van bankkredieten" by A. Bruggeman and R. Wouters, Document Series, April 2001.
16. "A guided tour of the world of rational expectations models and optimal policies" by Ph. Jeanfils, Research Series, May 2001.
17. "Attractive Prices and Euro - Rounding effects on inflation" by L. Aucremanne and D. Cornille, Documents Series, November 2001.
18. "The interest rate and credit channels in Belgium: an investigation with micro-level firm data" by P. Butzen, C. Fuss and Ph. Vermeulen, Research series, December 2001.
19 "Openness, imperfect exchange rate pass-through and monetary policy" by F. Smets and R. Wouters, Research series, March 2002.
20. "Inflation, relative prices and nominal rigidities" by L. Aucremanne, G. Brys, M. Hubert, P. J. Rousseeuw and A. Struyf, Research series, April 2002.
21. "Lifting the burden: fundamental tax reform and economic growth" by D. Jorgenson, Research series, May 2002.
22. "What do we know about investment under uncertainty?" by L. Trigeorgis, Research series, May 2002.
23. "Investment, uncertainty and irreversibility: evidence from Belgian accounting data" by D. Cassimon, P.-J. Engelen, H. Meersman, M. Van Wouwe, Research series, May 2002.
24. "The impact of uncertainty on investment plans" by P. Butzen, C. Fuss, Ph. Vermeulen, Research series, May 2002.
25. "Investment, protection, ownership, and the cost of capital" by Ch. P. Himmelberg, R. G. Hubbard, I. Love, Research series, May 2002.
25. "Investment, protection, ownership, and the cost of capital" by Ch. P. Himmelberg, R. G. Hubbard, I. Love, Research series, May 2002.