Why Are Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Component Decompositions of GDP So Different?

James Morley, Charles Nelson and Eric Zivot
Additional contact information
Eric Zivot: University of Washington

No UWEC-2002-01, Working Papers from University of Washington, Department of Economics

Abstract: This paper reconciles two widely-used decompositions of GDP into trend and cycle that yield starkly different results. Beveridge-Nelson (BN) implies that a stochastic trend accounts for most of the variation in output, while Unobserved-Components (UC) implies cyclical variation is dominant. Which is correct has broad implications for the relative importance of real versus nominal shocks. We show the difference arises from the restriction imposed in UC that trend and cycle innovations are uncorrelated. When this restriction is relaxed, the UC decomposition is identical to the BN decomposition. Furthermore, the zero correlation restriction can be rejected for U.S. quarterly GDP, with the estimated correlation being –0.9.

Date: 2002-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Published in Review of Economics and Statistics, Volume LXXXV, No. 2. May, 2003

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/MNZ.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 404 Not Found (http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/MNZ.pdf [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/MNZ.pdf [302 Found]--> https://econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/MNZ.pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Why Are the Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Components Decompositions of GDP So Different? (2003)
Working Paper: Why are Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-component decompositions of GDP so Different? (2003)
Working Paper: Why are Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Component Decompositions of GDP so Different? (2000)
Working Paper: Why Are Beveridge-Nelson and Unobserved-Component Decompositions of GDP So Different? (2000)
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:udb:wpaper:uwec-2002-01

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from University of Washington, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Michael Goldblatt ().