DO TECHNOLOGY SHOCKS DRIVE HOURS UP OR DOWN? A LITTLE EVIDENCE FROM AN AGNOSTIC PROCEDURE

This paper analyzes the robustness of the estimate of a positive productivity shock on hours to the presence of a possible unit root in hours. Estimations in levels or in first differences provide opposite conclusions. We rely on an agnostic procedure in which the researcher does not have to choose between a specification in levels or in first differences. The method uses alternative approximations based on local-to-unity asymptotic theory and allows the lead-time of the impulse response function to be a fixed fraction of the sample size. These devices provide better approximations in small samples and give confidence bands that have better coverage properties at medium and long horizons than existing methods. We find that a positive productivity shock has a negative effect on hours, as in Francis and Ramey (2001), but the effect is much more short-lived, and disappears after two quarters. The effect becomes positive at business cycle frequencies, as in Christiano et al. (2003)

[1]  Graham Elliott,et al.  Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Coefficients Near One , 2000 .

[2]  Robust con fi dence intervals for autoregressive coe ffi cients near one , 2001 .

[3]  J. Stock,et al.  Confidence Intervals for the Largest Autoresgressive Root in U.S. Macroeconomic Time Series , 1991 .

[4]  Julio J. Rotemberg,et al.  Nber Macroeconomics Annual , 1986 .

[5]  Jonathan D. Cryer,et al.  Time Series Analysis , 1986 .

[6]  Elena Pesavento,et al.  Small Sample Confidence Intervals for Multivariate Impulse Response Functions at Long Horizons , 2004 .

[7]  Robert J. Vigfusson.  The Delayed Response to a Technology Shock: A Flexible Price Explanation , 2004 .

[8]  T. W. Anderson,et al.  Estimation of the Parameters of a Single Equation in a Complete System of Stochastic Equations , 1949 .

[9]  Helmut Lütkepohl,et al.  Introduction to multiple time series analysis , 1991 .

[10]  Ian T. Jolliffe,et al.  Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis , 1993 .

[11]  Harald Uhlig,et al.  Understanding unit rooters: a helicopter tour , 1991 .

[12]  John Shea,et al.  What Do Technology Shocks Do? , 1998, NBER Macroeconomics Annual.

[13]  Jonathan H. Wright.  Confidence Intervals for Univariate Impulse Responses With a Near Unit Root , 2000 .

[14]  Elena Pesavento,et al.  Optimal Power for Testing Potential Cointegrating Vectors With Known Parameters for Nonstationarity , 2004 .

[15]  Lutz Kilian,et al.  How accurate are confidence intervals for impulse responses in large VAR models , 2000 .

[16]  P. Perron,et al.  Lag Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power , 2001 .

[17]  Michael Jansson,et al.  Testing for Unit Roots with Stationary Covariates , 2000 .

[18]  H. Uhlig.  Do Technology Shocks Lead to a Fall in Total Hours Worked , 2004 .

[19]  Michael T. Owyang,et al.  The Use of Long-Run Restrictions for the Identification of Technology Shocks , 2003 .

[20]  Bruce E. Hansen,et al.  Rethinking the Univariate Approach to Unit Root Testing: Using Covariates to Increase Power , 1995, Econometric Theory.

[21]  J. Stock,et al.  Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root , 1992 .

[22]  J. Galí,et al.  Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations , 1996 .

[23]  J. Galí,et al.  Technology Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations: How Well Does the Real Business Cycle Model Fit Postwar U.S. Data? , 2004, NBER Macroeconomics Annual.

[24]  J. Stock,et al.  Confidence Intervals for the Largest Autoregressive Root in U , 1991 .