Macroeconomic dynamics and inflation regimes in the U.S. Results from threshold vector autoregressions

Mandler, Martin (2010): Macroeconomic dynamics and inflation regimes in the U.S. Results from threshold vector autoregressions.

Abstract

This paper studies regime dependence in macroeconomic dynamics in the U.S. using a threshold vector autoregressive model in which endogenous regime switches are triggered by the inflation rate. The model separates a high from a low inflation regime with both regimes being strongly persistent. Generalized impulse response functions highlight important across-regime differences in the responses of the economy to monetary policy and inflation shocks. Simulating both regimes with individual structural equations interchanged shows a change in inflation dynamics to be the most important source of the transition of the U.S. economy from the high into the low inflation state while the change in the monetary policy reaction functions has only very little effect. Our results indicate that favorable changes in the economic structure and less frequent and smaller shocks are important explanations for the observed decline in U.S. macroeconomic volatility since the mid 1980s.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: threshold vector autoregression; Great Moderation
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C32 - Time-Series Models ; Dynamic Quantile Regressions ; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models ; Diffusion Processes ; State Space Models; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles > E32 - Business Fluctuations ; Cycles; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit > E58 - Central Banks and Their Policies

References

Aksoy, Y., Orphanides, A., Small, D., Wieland, V., Wilcox, D., 2006. A quantitative exploration of the opportunistic approach to disinflation. Journal of Monetary Economics 53, 1877-1893.

Andrews, D.W.K., Ploberger, W., 1994. Optimal tests when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Econometrica 62, 1383-1414.

Balke, N.S., 2000. Credit and economic activity: Credit regimes and the nonlinear propagation of shocks. Review of Economics and Statistics 82, 516-536.

Benati, L., Surico, P., 2009. VAR analysis and the Great Moderation. American Economic Review 99, 1636-1652.

Bunzel, H., Enders, W., 2010. The Taylor rule and ``opportunistic'' monetary policy. CREATES Research Paper No. 2010-4.

Calza, A., Sousa, J., 2006. Output and inflation responses to credit shocks: are there threshold effects in the Euro area?. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics 10, 1-21.

Canova, F., Gambetti, L. 2009. Structural change in the US economy. Is there a role for monetary policy?. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 33, 477-490.

Christiano, L.J., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C.L., 1999. Monetary policy shocks: what have we learned and to what end?. In: Taylor, J.B., Woodford, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 1A. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 65-148.

Cogley, T., Sargent, T.J., 2005. Drift and volatilities: monetary policies and outcomes in the post WWII US. Review of Economic Dynamics 8, 262-302.

Cukierman, A., 1992. Central Bank Strategy, Credibility, and Independence: Theory and Evidence. Cambridge, The MIT-Press.

Cukierman, A., Meltzer, A.H., 1986. A theory of ambiguity, credibility and inflation under discretion and asymmetric information. Econometrica 54, 1099-1128.

Eichenbaum, M., 1992. Comment on interpreting the macroeconomic time series facts: the effects of monetary policy. European Economic Review 36, 1001-1011.

Giannone, D., Lenza, M., Reichlin, L., 2008. Explaining the Great Moderation: it is not the shocks. European Economic Review 6, 621-633.

Gordon, R.J., 2005. What caused the decline in U.S. business cycle volatility. NBER Working Paper No. 11777.

Hansen, B.E., 1986. Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis. Econometrica 64, 413-430.

Hanson, M.S., 2004. The ``price puzzle'' reconsidered. Journal of Monetary Economics 51, 1384-1413.

Koop, G.M., Pesaran, H., Potter, S.M., 1996. Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. Journal of Econometrics 74, 119-148.

Meyer, L.H., Swanson, E.T., Wieland, V., 2001. NAIRU uncertainty and non-linear policy rules. American Economic Review 91, 226-231.

Mojon, B., 2008. When did unsystematic monetary policy have an effect on inflation?. European Economic Review 52, 487-497.

Orphanides, A., Wilcox, D., 2002, The opportunistic approach to disinflation. International Finance 5, 47-71.

Primiceri, G., 2005. Time varying structural vector autoregressions and monetary policy. Review of Economic Studies 72, 831-852.

Sims, C.A., Zha, T., 2006. Were there regime switches in US monetary policy?. American Economic Review 96, 54-81.

Stock, J.H., Watson, M.W., 2003. Has the business cycle changed and why?. In: Gertler, M., Rogoff, K.R. (Eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2002. The MIT-Press, Cambridge, pp. 159-218.

Swanson, E.T., 2006. Optimal non-Linear policy: signal extraction with a non-normal prior. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30, 185-203.

Tong, H., 1978. On a threshold model. In: Chen, C.H. (Ed.), Pattern Recognition and Signal Processing. Sijthoff \& Noordhoff, Amsterdam, pp. 101-141.

Tong, H., 1990. Nonlinear Time Series: A Dynamical System Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Tong, H., Lim, K.S., 1980. Threshold autoregressions, limit cycles, and data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 42, 245-292.

Tsay, R.S., 1998. Testing and modeling multivariate threshold models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 93, 1188-1198.