Abstract
This paper considers the implications of the permanent/transitory decomposition of shocks for identification of structural models in the general case where the model might contain more than one permanent structural shock. It provides a simple and intuitive generalization of the influential work of Blanchard and Quah [1989. The dynamic effects of aggregate demand and supply disturbances. The American Economic Review 79, 655–673] , and shows that structural equations with known permanent shocks cannot contain error correction terms, thereby freeing up the latter to be used as instruments in estimating their parameters. The approach is illustrated by a re-examination of the identification schemes used by Wickens and Motto [2001. Estimating shocks and impulse response functions. Journal of Applied Econometrics 16, 371–387], Shapiro and Watson [1988. Sources of business cycle fluctuations. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 3, 111–148], King et al. [1991. Stochastic trends and economic fluctuations. American Economic Review 81, 819–840] , Gali [1992. How well does the ISLM model fit postwar US data? Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, 709–735; 1999. Technology, employment, and the business cycle: Do technology shocks explain aggregate fluctuations? American Economic Review 89, 249–271] and Fisher [2006. The dynamic effects of neutral and investment-specific technology shocks. Journal of Political Economy 114, 413–451].
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
