Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:19:51.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NOMINAL RIGIDITIES, RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT, AND ADJUSTMENT COSTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

Charles T. Carlstrom  and
Timothy S. Fuerst
Charles T. Carlstrom
Affiliation:
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Timothy S. Fuerst*
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University and Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
*
Address correspondence to: Timothy S. Fuerst, Department of Economics, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence suggests that durable goods and residential housing are more flexibly priced than nondurables and services. Using a standard sticky price general equilibrium model, Barsky, House, and Kimball [American Economic Review 97(3) (2007), 984–998] demonstrate that if durable goods are flexibly priced and nondurables are sticky, then a monetary contraction leads to an expansion in production in the durable sector. This is wildly at odds with the empirical evidence. This paper demonstrates that if three features are added to the model (sticky nominal wages, housing construction adjustment costs, and habit persistence in consumption), it delivers sectoral implications that are broadly consistent with the data.

Keywords

Residential investmentSticky pricesAdjustment costs
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 136 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barsky, R., House, C.L., and Kimball, M. (2003) Do Flexible Durable Goods Prices Undermine Sticky Price Models? Manuscript, University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsky, Robert B., House, Christopher L., and Kimball, Miles S. (2007) Sticky-price models and durable goods. American Economic Review 97 (3), 984–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Lawrence J., Eichenbaum, Martin, and Evans, Charles L. (2005) Nominal rigidities and the dynamic effects of a shock to monetary policy. Journal of Political Economy 113 (1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Davis, Morris A. and Heathcote, Jonathan (2005) Housing and the business cycle. International Economic Review 46 (3), 751–784.Google Scholar
Davis, M.A. and Ortalo-Magné, Francois (2008) Household Expenditures, Wages, Rents. Manuscript, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics.Google Scholar
Erceg, C.J., Henderson, D.W., and Levin, A.T. (2000) Optimal monetary policy with staggered wage and price contracts. Journal of Monetary Economics 46 (2), 281–313.Google Scholar
Erceg, C.J. and Levin, A.T. (2002) Optimal Monetary Policy with Durable and Nondurable Goods. European Central Bank Working Paper Series, No. 179.Google Scholar
Erceg, C.J. and Levin, A.T. (2006) Optimal monetary policy with durable consumption goods. Journal of Monetary Economics 53 (7), 1341–1359.Google Scholar
Ogaki, M. and Reinhart, C.M. (1998) Measuring intertemporal substitution: The role of durable goods. Journal of Political Economy 106 (5), 1078–1098.Google Scholar
Topel, Robert and Rosen, Sherwin (1988) Housing investment in the United States. Journal of Political Economy 96 (4), 718–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yun, Tack (1996) Nominal price rigidity, money supply endogeneity, and business cycles. Journal of Monetary Economics 37 (2), 345–370.Google Scholar