Abstract
Recent work on the effects of permanent technology shocks argue that the basic RBC model cannot account for a negative correlation between hours worked and labor productivity. In this paper, I show that this conjecture is not necessarily correct. In the basic RBC model, I find that hours worked fall and labor productivity rises after a positive permanent technology shock once one allows for the possibility that the process for the permanent technology shock is slightly persistent in growth rates. A more serious limitation of the RBC model is its inability to generate a persistent rise in hours worked after a positive permanent technology shock along with a rise in labor productivity that are in line with what the data suggests. These results call for a reconsideration of the real and nominal frictions and policy response that need to be introduced in the basic RBC model in order to improve the model's ability to match the data.
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.
