This study addresses two significant limitations in the literature on cross-country expenditure comparisons: (a) treatment of all countries, large and small, as single entities with no spatial differences inside the countries, and (b) use of Divisia price indices, rather than Rank 3 preference-based “exact price” indices, in the expenditure comparisons. This paper compares alternative preference consistent methods for estimating spatial price differences in a large heterogeneous country, namely India, that are benchmarked against the spatial prices generated by the Laspyeres and Tornqvist price indices. Unlike the use of conventional price indices, the use of demand-systems-based methods allows the incorporation of price-induced substitution effects between items. The paper illustrates the usefulness of the methodology by using the “exact” spatial price indices, in conjunction with the inequality-sensitive welfare measure due to Sen, to rank the Indian states and examine changes in ranking during one of the most significant periods in independent India. The results have methodological and empirical implications that extend far beyond India.

We study comparative statics results for the steady-state monetary equilibria of a simple random matching model of money with endogenous prices and no extrinsic uncertainty. Some of the results appear counterintuitive (both when take-it-or-leave-it offer or when Nash–Rubinstein bargaining is used in the model). Consistency of the equilibrium expectations causes the partial equilibrium intuitions to be reversed. We then proceed to apply the new insights to the analysis of sunspot equilibria in these type of models of bilateral trade with money.

This paper characterizes optimal monetary policy in an economy with endogenous firm entry, a cash-in-advance constraint, and preset wages. Firms must make profits to cover entry costs; thus the markup on goods prices is efficient. However, because leisure is not priced at a markup, the consumption–leisure trade-off is distorted. Consequently, the real wage, hours, and production are suboptimally low. Because of the labor requirement for entry, insufficient labor supply also implies that entry is too low. This paper shows that in the absence of fiscal instruments such as labor income subsidies, the optimal monetary policy achieves higher welfare under sticky wages than under flexible wages. The policy maker uses the money supply instrument to raise the real wage—the cost of leisure—above its flexible-wage level, in response to expansionary shocks to productivity and entry costs. This increases labor supply, expanding production and firm entry.

The paper presents an agent-based model to study the possible effects of different fiscal and monetary policies in the context of debt deflation. We introduce a modified Taylor rule that includes the financial position of firms as a target. Monte Carlo simulations provide a representation of the complex feedback effects generated by the interaction among the different transmission channels of monetary policy. The model also reproduces the evidence of low inflation during stock market booms and shows how it can lead to overinvestment and destabilize the system. The paper also investigates the possible reasons behind this stylized fact by testing different behavioral rules for the central bank. We find that, in a context of sticky prices and volatile expectations, endogenous credit creation can be identified as the main source of the divergent dynamics of prices in the real and financial sectors.

This paper investigates the effect of financial shocks using a general equilibrium model that links the firm's flows of financing with labor market variables. The results show that financial shocks have sizeable effects on debt, dividend payout, and wages. Shocks to the job destruction rate are important in explaining fluctuations in unemployment. The analysis also investigates the underlying driving forces of some key comovements in the data and finds shocks to the job destructions rate important.

This paper provides theoretical foundations to the contemporaneous increase in computer usage, human capital, and multitasking observed in many OECD countries during the 1990s. The links among work organization, technology, and human capital is modelled by establishing the conditions under which firms allocate the workers' time among several productive tasks. Organizational change is then analyzed in a dynamic perspective as the transition from specialization toward multitasking emphasizing its technological and educational determinants. We show that large enough “organizational shocks” can trigger a transition from specialization to multitasking, and this transition obviously should be accompanied by gradual increases in human capital.

Human capital is embodied in people of different generations whose lifetimes are finite. We show that the finiteness of people's lives precludes human capital accumulation from driving long-run aggregate economic growth unless sufficiently strong externalities from aggregate human capital are introduced. Two possible channels for carrying forward such externalities are (i) knowledge spillovers and (ii) public education spending. Our findings shed new light on the foundations of the Uzawa–Lucas growth model. We also show that the cross-sectional Mincer equation, generated by a linear human capital accumulation equation at the individual level, does not carry forward to aggregate data.

This paper analyzes a two-phase endogenous growth model in which the adoption of a backstop technology (e.g., solar) yields a sustained supply of essential energy inputs previously obtained from exhaustible resources (e.g., oil). Growth is knowledge-driven and the optimal timing of technology switching is determined by welfare maximization. The optimal path exhibits discrete jumps in endogenous variables: technology switching implies sudden reductions in consumption and output, an increase in the growth rate, and instantaneous adjustments in saving rates. Due to the positive growth effect, it is optimal to implement the new technology when its current consumption benefits are substantially lower than those generated by old technologies.

We recast Diamond's search equilibrium model into that with a finite number of agents. The state of the model is described by a jump-Markov process, the transition rates of which are functions of the reservation cost, which are endogenously determined by value maximization by rational agents. The existence of stochastic fluctuations causes the fraction of the employed to move from one basin of attraction to the other with positive probabilities when the dynamics have multiple equilibria. Stochastic asymmetric cycles that arise are quite different from the cycles of the set of Diamond–Fudenberg nonlinear deterministic differential equations. By taking the number of agents to infinity, we get a limiting probability distribution over the stationary state equilibria. This provides a natural basis for equilibrium selection in models with multiple equilibria, which is new in the economic literature.

This paper compares the different dynamics of the simple-sum monetary aggregates and the Divisia monetary aggregate indices over time, over the business cycle, and across high and low inflation and interest-rate phases. Although traditional comparisons of the series sometimes suggest that simple-sum and Divisia monetary aggregates share similar dynamics, there are important differences around turning points that cannot be evaluated by their average behavior. We use a factor model with a regime-switching model that separates the common movements underlying the monetary aggregate indices from idiosyncratic variations in each series. We find that the major differences between the simple-sum aggregates and Divisia indices occur around the beginnings and ends of recessions and during some high-interest-rate phases. We note the inferences' policy relevance, which is particularly dramatic at the broadest (M3) level of aggregation. Indeed, as Belongia [Journal of Political Economy, 104 (5) (1996), 1065–1083] has observed in this regard, “measurement matters.”

The aim of this paper is to study the optimal duration of unemployment benefit entitlement across the business cycle. We analyze whether the entitlement duration should be prolonged in bad and shortened in good times. Because of consumption smoothing, such a countercyclical policy can be welfare-enhancing as long as it does not affect labor market adjustment too severely and/or as long as it can even help to reduce inefficiencies there. If, however, the labor market is already quite inflexible, procyclical behavior may be preferable. In a calibrated dynamic business cycle framework, we find that countercyclical benefit entitlement duration may be preferable in the United States but not in Europe.

This paper considers a Ramsey model of linear taxation for an economy with capital and two kinds of labor. If the government cannot distinguish between the return from capital and the return from entrepreneurial labor, then there will be positive capital income taxation, even in the long run. This happens because the only way to tax entrepreneurial labor is by also taxing capital. Furthermore, under fairly general conditions, the optimal tax on observable labor income is higher than the capital tax, although both are strictly positive. Thus, even though both income taxes are positive, imposing uniform income taxation would lead to additional distortions in the economy.

Recent U.S. evidence suggests that the response of labor share to a productivity shock is characterized by countercyclicality and overshooting. These findings cannot be reconciled easily with existing business cycle models. We extend the Diamond–Mortensen–Pissarides model of search in the labor market by considering strategic interactions among an endogenous number of producers, which leads to countercyclical price markups. Although Nash bargaining delivers a countercyclical labor share, we show that countercyclical markups are fundamental to address the overshooting. On the contrary, we find that real wage rigidity does not seem to play a crucial role in the dynamics of the labor share of income.

We formulate an overlapping-generations model with household heterogeneity and productive and nonproductive government programs to study the macroeconomic and intergenerational welfare effects of risk premium shocks and government debt reductions. We demonstrate that in a small open economy with a high level of debt, a small increase in the risk premium of the interest rate leads to a substantial contraction in output and negative welfare effects. We then quantify the effects of reducing the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio using a wide range of fiscal austerity measures. Our results indicate trade-offs between short-run contractions and long-run expansions in aggregate output. In the short run, spending-based austerity reforms are worse than tax-based reforms in terms of lost income. However, in the long run, spending-based reforms produce higher output than tax-based reforms. In addition, welfare effects vary significantly across generations, skill groups, and working sectors. The current old and middle-aged generations experience welfare losses, whereas future generations are beneficiaries of the reforms.

This paper studies optimal fiscal policy, in the form of taxation and the allocation of tax revenues between infrastructure and environmental investment, in a general-equilibrium growth model with endogenous subjective discounting. A green spending reform, defined as a reallocation of government expenditures toward the environment, can procure a double dividend by raising growth and improving environmental conditions, although the environment does not impact the production technology. Also, endogenous Ramsey fiscal policy eliminates the possibility of an “environmental and economic poverty trap.” In contrast to the case of exogenous discounting, green spending reforms are the optimal response of the Ramsey government to a rise in the agents' environmental concerns.

It is common to interpret rejections of the unit-root null hypothesis in favor of a trend stationary process with possible trend breaks as evidence that the data are better characterized as stationary about a broken trend. This interpretation is valid only if the model postulated under the alternative hypothesis is the only plausible alternative to the model postulated under the null. We argue that there are economically plausible models that are not well captured under either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis of these tests. We show that applied researchers who ignore this possibility are likely to reject the unit-root null with high probability in favor of a trend stationary process with possible breaks. Our evidence shows that this potential pitfall is both economically relevant and quantitatively important. We explore the extent to which applied users may mitigate inferential errors by using finite-sample and bootstrap critical values.

Most of us are armchair economists. Whether our opinions are right or wrong, we can proffer them at little personal cost—the most we can lose is our reputation. Not so for János Kornai. For much of his life, speaking freely would have led him to land in jail, or worse. He faced a difficult choice. He could publish illegally, take the samizdat route, but reach a very small number of readers. He could instead respect a number of official taboos, publish legally, and reach a much wider readership. These difficulties have not prevented him from giving us the most informed and deepest critique of the socialist system to date. This interview is, I hope, successful in showing the degree to which Kornai's life and work have been intertwined, and how he came to believe what he believes today. Kornai is sharing his time between Harvard and Collegium Budapest. The interview took place in my office when I was visiting Harvard University in June 1998.

We focus on the interaction of frictions both at the firm level and in the banking sector in order to examine the transmission mechanism of the shocks and to reflect on the response of the monetary policy to increases in interest rate spreads, using DSGE models with financial frictions. However, VAR models are linear and the solutions of DSGEs are often linear approximations; hence they do not consider time variation in parameters that could account for inherent nonlinearities and capture the adaptive underlying structure of the economy, especially in crisis periods. A novel method for time-varying VAR models is introduced. As an extension to the standard homoskedastic TVP-VAR, we employ a Markov-switching heteroskedastic error structure. Overall, we conduct a comparative empirical analysis of the out-of-sample performance of simple and hybrid DSGE models against standard VARs, BVARs, FAVARs, and TVP-VARs, using data sets from the U.S. economy. We apply advanced Bayesian and quasi-optimal filtering techniques in estimating and forecasting the models.

Long-run income convergence is investigated in the U.S. context. We employ a novel pairwise econometric procedure based on a probabilistic definition of convergence. The time-series properties of all the possible regional income pairs are examined by means of unit root and non-cointegration tests, where inference is based on the fraction of rejections. We distinguish between the cases of strong convergence, where the implied cointegrating vector is [1, −1], and weak convergence, where long-run homogeneity is relaxed. To address cross-sectional dependence, we employ a bootstrap methodology to derive the empirical distribution of the fraction of rejections. We find supporting evidence of U.S. states sharing a common stochastic trend consistent with a definition of convergence based on long-run forecasts of state incomes being proportional rather than equal. We find that the strength of convergence between states decreases with distance and initial income disparity. Using Metropolitan Statistical Area data, evidence for convergence is stronger.

This paper examines the question to what extent premia for macroeconomic risks in banking are sufficient to avoid banking crises. We investigate a competitive banking system embedded in an overlapping-generations model subject to repeated macroeconomic shocks. We show that even if banks fully incorporate macroeconomic risks into their pricing of loans, a banking system may enter bankruptcy with probability one. A major cause for this default is that risk premia of a competitive banking system may become too small if the capital base is low.