Monetary Policy Indeterminacy and Identification Failures in the U.S.: Results from A Robust Test
美国货币政策的均衡不确定性与识别失效:稳健检验结果AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确报告美国在20世纪70年代末发生宏观均衡状态的跨期转变,对应结构变化方向。
美国货币政策的均衡不确定性与识别失效:稳健检验结果AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Summary We propose a novel identification‐robust test for the null hypothesis that an estimated New Keynesian model has a reduced form consistent with the unique stable solution against the alternative of sunspot‐driven multiple equilibria. Our strategy is designed to handle identification failures as well as the misspecification of the relevant propagation mechanisms. We invert a likelihood ratio test for the cross‐equation restrictions (CER) that the New Keynesian system places on its reduced‐form solution under determinacy. If the CER are not rejected, sunspot‐driven expectations can be ruled out from the model equilibrium and we accept the structural model. Otherwise, we move to a second‐step and invert an Anderson and Rubin‐type test for the orthogonality restrictions (OR) implied by the system of structural Euler equations. The hypothesis of indeterminacy and the structural model are accepted if the OR are not rejected. We investigate the finite‐sample performance of the suggested identification‐robust two‐step testing strategy by some Monte Carlo experiments and then apply it to a New Keynesian AD/AS model estimated with actual US data. In spite of some evidence of weak identification as for the ‘Great Moderation’ period, our results offer formal support to the hypothesis of a switch from indeterminacy to a scenario consistent with uniqueness occurring in the late 1970s. Our identification‐robust full‐information confidence set for the structural parameters computed on the ‘Great Moderation’ regime turns out to be more precise than the intervals previously reported in the literature through ‘limited‐information’ methods. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.