The monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), with its annual demographic March supplement, and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) are the leading sources of data on worker reallocation across occupations, industries, and firms. Much of the active current research is based on these data. In this paper, we contrast these data sets as sources of data for measuring the dynamics of worker mobility. We find that (i) (March) CPS data are characterized by a substantial amount of noise when it comes to identifying occupational and industry switches; (ii) March CPS data provide a poor measure of annual occupational mobility and, instead, most likely measure mobility over a much shorter period; (iii) (the changes in) the procedure to impute missing data have a dramatic effect on the interpretation of the CPS data in, e.g., the trend in occupational mobility. The most important shortcomings of the PSID are the facts that (i) occupational and industry affiliation data are available in most years at an annual frequency; (ii) the PSID's sample, by design, excludes immigrants arriving in the United States after 1968; (iii) the Retrospective Occupation–Industry Files with reliable occupation and industry affiliation data are available only until 1980.

We set up a dynamic stochastic model of a stylized economy comprising a final output sector (with traditional and modern firms) and an intermediate goods sector. It is shown that market integration reduces the volatility of the rate of return to capital invested in modern firms. The induced portfolio decisions of households lead to a reallocation of capital from traditional to modern firms. Despite the presence of a reverse precautionary saving channel, the growth rate unambiguously increases because of the reallocation of capital. Empirical estimates for OECD countries support the theoretical results.

One questionable aspect of price posting with directed search is the strong commitment by sellers to commit to the advertised terms of trade. In this paper I explore the welfare implications of assuming that sellers cannot commit and vary the quality of their output ex post according to realized demand. I show that such lack of commitment translates into lower participation by buyers, lower average quality, and a consumption-equivalent loss of 0.3% of annual GDP.

This paper develops a monetary endogenous growth model for an open economy. The salient feature of the model is that it is able to deal with various monetary policy rules, including money growth rate targeting, inflation rate targeting, and nominal income growth rate targeting. It is found that a rise in the pegged rate may either increase or decrease the balanced-growth rate under regimes of both money growth rate targeting and nominal income growth targeting. However, a rise in the pegged rate is sure to depress the balanced-growth rate under the regime of inflation rate targeting. It is also found that money growth rate targeting is fundamentally equivalent to nominal income growth rate targeting if a specific restriction is imposed, and inflation rate targeting is not qualitatively equivalent to either money growth rate targeting or nominal income growth rate targeting.

This note evaluates whether a New Open Economy model can reproduce qualitatively the observed fluctuations of the tradeable and nontradeable sectors of the U.S. economy. The answer is positive: both in the model and in the data, the standard deviations of tradeable inflation, output, and employment are significantly higher than the standard deviations of the corresponding nontradeable sector variables. The key role in generating this result is played by the greater responsiveness of tradeable sector variables to monetary shocks.

This note studies fiscal–monetary policy interactions in an endogenous growth model with multiple assets. The “growth-rate Laffer curve” clarifies an important tension between economic growth and government revenue and reveals that higher economic growth does not always finance a larger budget deficit. There are two Pareto-ranked balanced-growth equilibria, which can both be E-stable. Although fiscal policy can eliminate the expectational indeterminacy, it rules out the equilibrium with a higher growth rate and higher welfare. Near the lower bound of the nominal interest rate, an arbitrarily small budget deficit will select the low-growth equilibrium to be the unique E-stable equilibrium.

The transcript of a panel discussion marking the 50th anniversary of John Muth's “Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price Movements” (Econometrica 1961). The panel consisted of Michael Lovell, Robert Lucas, Dale Mortensen, Robert Shiller, and Neil Wallace. The discussion was moderated by Kevin Hoover and Warren Young. The panel touched on a wide variety of issues related to the rational-expectations hypothesis, including its history, starting with Muth's work at Carnegie Tech; its methodological role; applications to policy; its relationship to behavioral economics; its role in the recent financial crisis; and its likely future.

The panel discussion was held in a session sponsored by the History of Economics Society at the Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) meetings in the Capitol 1 Room of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Denver, Colorado.

We build quadratic labor adjustment costs into an otherwise standard New Keynesian model of the business cycle and show that this increases output persistence in a vein similar to that of other models of labor market frictions. Furthermore, we demonstrate the implication of quadratic labor adjustment costs for monetary policy. We show that there is a simple rule determining whether quadratic labor adjustment costs imply a trade-off between stabilizing inflation and output.

This paper presents a monetary stochastic general equilibrium model that allows the real cyclical movements of the economy to be explained as a consequence of exogenous monetary, public spending, and technology shocks. The model is calibrated and simulated, and its accuracy in replicating the cyclical movements in the real variables is compared with that of the standard real business cycle (RBC) model. We find that our model fits the observed data better than the existing RBC models, especially for the labor market.

In a very interesting endogenous growth model, Futagami, Iwaisako, and Ohdoi [Macroeconomic Dynamics 12 (2008), 445–462] study the long-run growth effect of borrowing for public investment. Their model exhibits (i) the multiplicity of balanced growth paths (BGPs) in the long run (two steady states) and (ii) a possible indeterminacy of the transition path to the high-growth BGP. The goal of this note is to show that their results depend on a sharp assumption, namely the definition of the public debt target as a ratio to private capital. If the target is defined in terms of public debt–to–GDP ratio, both results vanish: the model exhibits a unique BGP (no multiplicity) and the adjustment path to this unique equilibrium is determinate (no indeterminacy).