Idiosyncratic Shocks and the Role of Nonconvexities in Plant and Aggregate Investment Dynamics

We study a model of lumpy investment wherein establishments face persistent shocks to common and plant-specific productivity, and nonconvex adjustment costs lead them to pursue generalized (S,s) investment rules. We allow persistent heterogeneity in both capital and total factor productivity alongside low-level investments exempt from adjustment costs to develop the first model consistent with available evidence on establishment-level investment rates. Examining the implications of lumpy investment for aggregate dynamics in this setting, we find that they remain substantial when factor supply considerations are ignored, but are quantitatively irrelevant in general equilibrium. The substantial implications of general equilibrium extend beyond the dynamics of aggregate series. While the presence of idiosyncratic shocks makes the time-averaged distribution of plant-level investment rates largely invariant to market-clearing movements in real wages and interest rates, we show that the dynamics of plants' investments differ sharply in their presence. Thus, model-based estimations of capital adjustment costs involving panel data may be quite sensitive to the assumption about equilibrium. Our analysis also offers new insights about how nonconvex adjustment costs influence investment at the plant. When establishments face idiosyncratic productivity shocks consistent with existing estimates, we find that nonconvex costs do not cause lumpy investments, but act to eliminate them.

[1]  Michael Woodford,et al.  Plant-Level Adjustment and Aggregate Investment Dynamics , 1995 .

[2]  D. Valderrama Statistical Nonlinearities in the Business Cycle: A Challenge for the Canonical RBC Model , 2002 .

[3]  E. Prescott Theory ahead of business-cycle measurement , 1986 .

[4]  Ricardo J. Caballero,et al.  Aggregate Investment , 1997 .

[5]  C. Bayer,et al.  Investment dynamics with fixed capital adjustment cost and capital market imperfections , 2006 .

[6]  S. Rebelo,et al.  Resuscitating Real Business Cycles , 2000 .

[7]  Aubhik Khan,et al.  Nonconvex factor adjustments in equilibrium business cycle models: Do nonlinearities matter? , 2003 .

[8]  G. Hansen Indivisible Labor and the Business Cycle , 1985 .

[9]  Russell Cooper,et al.  On the Nature of Capital Adjustment Costs , 2000 .

[10]  Russell Cooper,et al.  Exhuming Q: Market Power vs. Capital Market Imperfections , 2001 .

[11]  Julia K. Thomas Is Lumpy Investment Relevant for the Business Cycle? , 2002, Journal of Political Economy.

[12]  Ricardo J. Caballero,et al.  Irreversibility and Aggregate Investment , 1991 .

[13]  Ricardo J. Caballero,et al.  Explaining Investment Dynamics in U.S. Manufacturing: A Generalized (S,S) Approach , 1994 .

[14]  Bob Chirinko,et al.  Business Fixed Investment Spending: Modeling Strategies, Empirical Results, and Policy Implications , 1993 .

[15]  Ricardo J. Caballero,et al.  Explaining Investment Dynamics in U.S. Manufacturing: A Generalized (S,S) Approach , 1994 .

[16]  Anthony A. Smith,et al.  INCOME AND WEALTH HETEROGENEITY, PORTFOLIO CHOICE, AND EQUILIBRIUM ASSET RETURNS , 1997, Macroeconomic Dynamics.

[17]  Russell Cooper,et al.  Machine Replacement and the Business Cycle: Lumps and Bumps , 1995 .

[18]  Per Krusell,et al.  Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in the Macroeconomy , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Richard Rogerson,et al.  Indivisible labor, lotteries and equilibrium , 1988 .

[20]  Anthony A. Smith,et al.  Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in the , 1998 .

[21]  Edward C. Prescott,et al.  Economic Growth and Business Cycles , 2020, Frontiers of Business Cycle Research.

[22]  Ruediger Bachmann,et al.  Lumpy Investment in Dynamic General Equilibrium , 2006 .

[23]  Marcelo Veracierto Plant level irreversible investment and equilibrium business cycles , 2002 .