Why are Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Component Decompositions of GDP so Different?

Charles Nelson and Eric Zivot ()

No 692, Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers from Econometric Society

Abstract: Two widely used methods of decomposing GDP into trend and cycle yield starkly different results. The unobserved component approach implies smooth trend with large, persistent cycle. In contrast, the Beveridge and Nelson (1981) approach implies most of the variation is attributable to trend. This conflict has been widely noted. It should surprise us that the two approaches produce very different trend-cycle decompositions since both are model-based. This paper attempts to find out why we do not, after decades of research, have a consistent picture of how variation in a series like real GDP should be allocated between trend and cycle.

Date: 2000-08-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (65)

Downloads: (external link)
http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/0692.pdf main text (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Why Are Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Component Decompositions of GDP So Different? (2000)
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:ecm:wc2000:0692

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers from Econometric Society Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().