Suchergebnisse

The objective in this paper is to review several theoretical issues associated with fiscal policy and to test these theories via a reduced form real GNP equation using quarterly U.S. data from 1958 through 1966. Theoretical work by Friedman, Holmes and Smith, and others suggest (for different reasons) that fiscal policy may be ineffective. Holmes and Smith point out that increases in taxes may conceivably increase aggregate demand if the demand for money depends on disposable income. Higher taxes shift the IS curve to the left as usual. However, higher taxes reduce disposable income and decrease the demand for money. With a constant money supply, the LM curve shifts to the right and the lower equilibrium interest rate increases aggregate demand. The net effect of the opposite shifts in IS & LM could conceivably be an increase in income. Similarly, lower taxes may conceivably lower equilibrium income. The argument of Friedman and others runs along different lines. They emphasize that any change in government expenditure or change in taxes may temporarily alter real income, but any "pure" fiscal policy must be accompanied by a change in government debt. The larger debt that accompanies a fiscal expansion raises interest rates and eventually reduces private demand. The fiscal expansion can allegedly "crowd out" private expenditure completely so that the net long run effect on real income is zero.

We develop a quantitative business cycle model with search complementarities in the inter-firm matching process that entails a multiplicity of equilibria. An active equilibrium with strong joint venture formation, large output, and low unemployment coexists with a passive equilibrium with low joint venture formation, low output, and high unemployment. Changes in fundamentals move the system between the two equilibria, generating large and persistent business cycle fluctuations. The volatility of shocks is important for the selection and duration of each equilibrium. Sufficiently adverse shocks in periods of low macroeconomic volatility trigger severe and protracted downturns. The magnitude of government intervention is critical to foster economic recovery in the passive equilibrium, while it plays a limited role in the active equilibrium.

We develop a quantitative business cycle model with search complementarities in the inter-firm matching process that entails a multiplicity of equilibria. An active static equilibrium with strong joint venture formation, large output, and low unemployment can coexist with a passive static equilibrium with low joint venture formation, low output, and high unemployment. Changes in fundamentals move the system between the two static equilibria, generating large and persistent business cycle fluctuations. The volatility of shocks is important for the selection and duration of each static equilibrium. Sufficiently adverse shocks in periods of low macroeconomic volatility trigger severe and protracted downturns. The magnitude of government intervention is critical to foster economic recovery in the passive static equilibrium, while it plays a limited role in the active static equilibrium.