2006National Bureau of Economic ResearchOpen access

Why Have Business Cycle Fluctuations Become Less Volatile?

Andrés Felipe Arias, Gary D. Hansen, Lee E. Ohanian

Open full text 41 citations

Abstract

This paper shows that a standard Real Business Cycle model driven by productivity shocks can successfully account for the 50 percent decline in cyclical volatility of output and its components, and labor input that has occurred since 1983.The model is successful because the volatility of productivity shocks has also declined significantly over the same time period.We then investigate whether the decline in the volatility of the Solow Residual is due to changes in the volatility of some other shock operating through a channel that is absent in the standard model.We therefore develop a model with variable capacity and labor utilization.We investigate whether government spending shocks, shocks that affect the household's first order condition for labor, and shocks that affect the household's first order condition for saving can plausibly account for the change in TFP volatility and in the volatility of output, its components, and labor.We find that none of these shocks are able to do this.This suggests that successfully accounting for the post-1983 decline in business cycle volatility requires a change in the volatility of a productivity-like shock operating within a standard growth model.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This paper shows that a standard Real Business Cycle model driven by productivity shocks can successfully account for the 50 percent decline in cyclical volatility of output and its components, and labor input that has occurred since 1983.The model is successful because the volatility of productivity shocks has also declined significantly over the same time period.We then investigate whether the decline in the volatility of the Solow Residual is due to changes in the volatility of some other shock operating through a channel that is absent in the standard model.We therefore develop a model with variable capacity and labor utilization.We investigate whether government spending shocks, shocks that affect the household's first order condition for labor, and shocks that affect the household's first order condition for saving can plausibly account for the change in TFP volatility and in the volatility of output, its components, and labor.We find that none of these shocks are able to do this.This suggests that successfully accounting for the post-1983 decline in business cycle volatility requires a change in the volatility of a productivity-like shock operating within a standard growth model.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 41 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This paper shows that a standard Real Business Cycle model driven by productivity shocks can successfully account for the 50 percent decline in cyclical volatility of output and its components, and labor input that has occurred since 1983.The model is successful because the volatility of productivity shocks has also declined significantly over the same time period.We then investigate whether the decline in the volatility of the Solow Residual is due to changes in the volatility of some other shock operating through a channel that is absent in the standard model.We therefore develop a model with variable capacity and labor utilization.We investigate whether government spending shocks, shocks that affect the household's first order condition for labor, and shocks that affect the household's first order condition for saving can plausibly account for the change in TFP volatility and in the volatility of output, its components, and labor.We find that none of these shocks are able to do this.This suggests that successfully accounting for the post-1983 decline in business cycle volatility requires a change in the volatility of a productivity-like shock operating within a standard growth model.

Key concepts: Business cycle, Business, Economics, Keynesian economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Why Have Business Cycle Fluctuations Become Less Volatile? — Research Paper | ScholarLens