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 labour 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 labour productivity rises after a positive permanent technology shock once one allows for the possibility that the process for the permanent technology shock is 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 labour productivity that are in line with what the data suggests.
Downloads: (external link) http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP4827.asp (application/pdf)
CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
More papers in CEPR Discussion Papers from C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers Address: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 53--56 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DG Series data maintained by ().
This site is part of RePEc
and all the data displayed here is part of the RePEc data set.
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to
contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .