Is cyclical real GNP really more persistent than the trend?

Christian Weber

Applied Economics, 1997, vol. 29, issue 7, 895-902

Abstract: Using an observed components decomposition to estimate permanent and temporary components of US real GNP, Campbell and Mankiw (1987) found that the estimated temporary component displays greater persistence than the estimated permanent component. This suggests that attempts to estimate separate permanent and temporary components in real GNP are unlikely to succeed. This finding is re-examined here using a longer real GNP series and a different decomposition, which guarantees that the estimated temporary component will be stationary. The resulting estimates of permanent and temporary output suggests that the temporary component displays no persistence and that the permanent component exhibits almost precisely the persistence of a random walk with drift. Cyclical real GNP is not more persistent than the trend.

Date: 1997
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/000368497326552 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:applec:v:29:y:1997:i:7:p:895-902

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEC20

DOI: 10.1080/000368497326552

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Economics is currently edited by Anita Phillips

More articles in Applied Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().