http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~bhansen/718/NonParametrics1.pdf
finite-dimmensional / infinite-dimmensional
true model = fitted model / true model != fitted model
2016年1月14日木曜日
2015年6月19日金曜日
2015年6月14日日曜日
2015年6月2日火曜日
2014年6月19日木曜日
2014年6月9日月曜日
Market size and BKK model
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0107_1015_1103.pdf
---<quote>---
with complete asset markets, country size does not affect the equilibrium allocation independently of export shares
---<unquote>---
---<quote>---
with complete asset markets, country size does not affect the equilibrium allocation independently of export shares
---<unquote>---
business cycle volatility and welfare
Furceri, D. and G. Karras. 2007. "Country Size and Business Cycle Volatility: Scale Really Matters." Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 21(4), 424-34.
----<quote>---
Is business-cycle volatility worthy to be considered as an indicator of economic performance, along such other established measures as economic growth and income per capita? While in the highly influential monograph Models of Business Cycles Robert Lucas (1987) famously argued that the costs associated with business cycles are virtually nonexistent, more recent research has challenged Lucas’s conclusions. For example, Mendoza (2000), Jones (1999), Matheron and Maury (2000), Epaulard and Pommeret (2003) showed that business cycle volatility reduces welfare, not least because of its negative effect on growth. Krusell and Smith (1999), and Storesletten et al. (2001) showed that in a model with heterogeneous agents the benefits from eliminating business cycle fluctuations are sizeable. More recently, Barlevy (2004) argues that economic fluctuations remarkably decrease welfare by affecting the growth rate of consumption. At the same time, a growing empirical literature starting with Ramey and Ramey (1995) has showed that cyclical volatility negatively affects growth and investment.We conclude that business-cycle volatility matters. Thus, if country size can be shown to have a significant effect on volatility, it follows that country size matters too.
---<unquote>---
----<quote>---
Is business-cycle volatility worthy to be considered as an indicator of economic performance, along such other established measures as economic growth and income per capita? While in the highly influential monograph Models of Business Cycles Robert Lucas (1987) famously argued that the costs associated with business cycles are virtually nonexistent, more recent research has challenged Lucas’s conclusions. For example, Mendoza (2000), Jones (1999), Matheron and Maury (2000), Epaulard and Pommeret (2003) showed that business cycle volatility reduces welfare, not least because of its negative effect on growth. Krusell and Smith (1999), and Storesletten et al. (2001) showed that in a model with heterogeneous agents the benefits from eliminating business cycle fluctuations are sizeable. More recently, Barlevy (2004) argues that economic fluctuations remarkably decrease welfare by affecting the growth rate of consumption. At the same time, a growing empirical literature starting with Ramey and Ramey (1995) has showed that cyclical volatility negatively affects growth and investment.We conclude that business-cycle volatility matters. Thus, if country size can be shown to have a significant effect on volatility, it follows that country size matters too.
---<unquote>---
登録:
投稿 (Atom)