Sticky Price and Limited Participation Models of Money: A Comparison
Lawrence J. Christiano
Northwestern University; Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Northwestern University; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Charles L. Evans
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - Research Department
NBER Working Paper No. w5804
This paper provides new evidence that models of the monetary transmission mechanism should be consistent with at least the following facts. In response to a contractionary monetary policy shock, the aggregate price level responds very little, aggregate output falls, interest rates initially rise, real wages decline, though by a modest amount, and profits fall. The paper argues that neither sticky price nor limited participation models can convincingly account for these facts. The key failing of the sticky price model is that it implies profits rise after a contractionary monetary policy shock. This finding is robust to a variety of perturbations of the benchmark sticky price model that we consider. In contrast, the limited participation model can account for all of the facts mentioned above. But it can do so only if one is willing to assume a high labor supply elasticity (2) and a high average markup (40%). The shortcomings of both models reflect the absence of other frictions, such as wage contracts, which dampen movements in the marginal cost of production after a monetary policy shock.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 58
Date posted: January 20, 1997
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.297 seconds