paint-brush
How the Lucas Critique Impacts the Rotemberg Economic Modelby@keynesian
102 reads

How the Lucas Critique Impacts the Rotemberg Economic Model

by Keynesian TechnologyDecember 12th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The Lucas critique suggests observational equivalence in the Rotemberg model only if microeconomic evidence supports specific parameter values. Real frictions could influence this relationship, but current evidence points to limitations in overturning macroeconometric conclusions.
featured image - How the Lucas Critique Impacts the Rotemberg Economic Model
Keynesian Technology HackerNoon profile picture

Author:

(1) David Staines.

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Mathematical Arguments

3 Outline and Preview

4 Calvo Framework and 4.1 Household’s Problem

4.2 Preferences

4.3 Household Equilibrium Conditions

4.4 Price-Setting Problem

4.5 Nominal Equilibrium Conditions

4.6 Real Equilibrium Conditions and 4.7 Shocks

4.8 Recursive Equilibrium

5 Existing Solutions

5.1 Singular Phillips Curve

5.2 Persistence and Policy Puzzles

5.3 Two Comparison Models

5.4 Lucas Critique

6 Stochastic Equilibrium and 6.1 Ergodic Theory and Random Dynamical Systems

6.2 Equilibrium Construction

6.3 Literature Comparison

6.4 Equilibrium Analysis

7 General Linearized Phillips Curve

7.1 Slope Coefficients

7.2 Error Coefficients

8 Existence Results and 8.1 Main Results

8.2 Key Proofs

8.3 Discussion

9 Bifurcation Analysis

9.1 Analytic Aspects

9.2 Algebraic Aspects (I) Singularities and Covers

9.3 Algebraic Aspects (II) Homology

9.4 Algebraic Aspects (III) Schemes

9.5 Wider Economic Interpretations

10 Econometric and Theoretical Implications and 10.1 Identification and Trade-offs

10.2 Econometric Duality

10.3 Coefficient Properties

10.4 Microeconomic Interpretation

11 Policy Rule

12 Conclusions and References


Appendices

A Proof of Theorem 2 and A.1 Proof of Part (i)

A.2 Behaviour of ∆

A.3 Proof Part (iii)

B Proofs from Section 4 and B.1 Individual Product Demand (4.2)

B.2 Flexible Price Equilibrium and ZINSS (4.4)

B.3 Price Dispersion (4.5)

B.4 Cost Minimization (4.6) and (10.4)

B.5 Consolidation (4.8)

C Proofs from Section 5, and C.1 Puzzles, Policy and Persistence

C.2 Extending No Persistence

D Stochastic Equilibrium and D.1 Non-Stochastic Equilibrium

D.2 Profits and Long-Run Growth

E Slopes and Eigenvalues and E.1 Slope Coefficients

E.2 Linearized DSGE Solution

E.3 Eigenvalue Conditions

E.4 Rouche’s Theorem Conditions

F Abstract Algebra and F.1 Homology Groups

F.2 Basic Categories

F.3 De Rham Cohomology

F.4 Marginal Costs and Inflation

G Further Keynesian Models and G.1 Taylor Pricing

G.2 Calvo Wage Phillips Curve

G.3 Unconventional Policy Settings

H Empirical Robustness and H.1 Parameter Selection

H.2 Phillips Curve

I Additional Evidence and I.1 Other Structural Parameters

I.2 Lucas Critique

I.3 Trend Inflation Volatility

I.2 Lucas Critique

Proposition 11 and the parametizations in Appendix H.1.2 suggest that the observational equivalence part of the Lucas critique applies to the Rotemberg model (at ZINSS) only if the microeconomic evidence supports ˜ω > 1. At the headline parametization



Lastly, the parametization could be effected by the addition of real frictions. These suppress the relationship between real output and marginal costs (see Gopinath and Itskhoki [2011]), which would show up as



where R > 0 measures the size of the real friction. These have been popular because the slope of the Rotemberg Phillips curve appears too high, from a macroeconometric standpoint. The difficulty is that microeconometric evidence favours smaller values, which are too small to overturn these conclusions (see Beck and Lein [2020]). This is probably as far as one should take this exercise.


This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.