Indicators for Dating Business Cycles: Cross-History Selection and Comparisons

Abstract

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Business Cycle Dating Committee and the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Business Cycle Dating Committee date business cycle turning points using a small number of aggregate measures of real economic activity. For example, in its memorandum explaining the December 2007 peak (NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee 2008), the NBER committee mentioned that it considers five series, quarterly real GDP and the “big four” monthly series, real personal income less transfers, real manufacturing and wholesaleretail trade sales, industrial production, and nonfarm employment. (These series do not in general receive equal weight.) In contrast, when the NBER research program on dating business cycles commenced, researchers examined turning points in hundreds of series and dated business cycles by detecting clusters of specific-cycle turning points; see Arthur Burns and Wesley Mitchell (1946, 13 and 77–80). The dating of turning points evidently has shifted from aggregating the turning points of many disaggregated series to using the turning points of a few highly aggregated series. This shift raises a methodological question: should reference cycle turning points be determined by aggregating then dating, or by dating then aggregating? This paper provides some preliminary evidence on the question of whether it is better to date then aggregate or aggregate then date using 270 monthly disaggregated real economic indicators. The questions considered in this paper parallel those in the large literature on forecasting Indicators for Dating Business Cycles: Cross-History Selection and Comparisons