Cyclical Signals from the Labor Market
with Paul David Boll, James Morley and Benjamin Wong · Oxford Open Economics 1, odab002
Abstract
We consider which labor market variables are the most informative for estimating and nowcasting the US output gap using a multivariate trend-cycle decomposition. Although the unemployment rate clearly contains important cyclical information, it also appears to reflect more persistent movements related to labor force participation that could distort inferences about the output gap. Instead, we show that the alternative U-2 unemployment rate (job losers as a percentage of the labor force) provides a more purely cyclical indicator of labor market conditions. To a lesser extent, but consistent with a link of the output gap to real labor costs in a New Keynesian setting, we also find that average hourly earnings are informative about the output gap.
A Unified Approach for Jointly Estimating the Business and Financial Cycle, and the Role of Financial Factors
with Julia Richter and Benjamin Wong · Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 136, 104315
Abstract
We jointly estimate the U.S. business and financial cycle through a unified empirical approach which also simultaneously quantifies the role of financial factors. Our approach uses the Beveridge-Nelson decomposition within a medium-scale Bayesian Vector Autoregression. First, we show, both in reduced form and when we identify a structural financial shock, that variation in financial factors had a larger role post-2000 and a more modest role pre-2000. Our results suggest that the financial sector did play a role in overheating the business cycle pre-Great Recession. Second, while an identified financial shock can generate a negative correlation between the lagged credit cycle and the contemporaneous output gap, the unconditional correlation between the credit cycle and the output gap is still positive. The latter at least suggests that one should be careful in associating an increase in the financial cycle to bust in the business cycle.
Global vs. Group-Specific Business Cycles: The Importance of Defining the Groups
with Marcus Wortmann · Macroeconomic Dynamics 26(1), 49–71
Abstract
The literature on international business cycles has employed dynamic factor models (DFMs) to disentangle global from group-specific and national factors in countries’ macroeconomic aggregates. Therefore, the countries have simply been classified ex ante as belonging to the same region or the same level of development. This paper estimates a DFM for a sample of 106 countries and three variables (output, consumption, investment) over the period 1960–2014, in which the countries are classified according to the outcome of a cluster analysis. By comparing the results with those obtained by the previous grouping approaches, we show substantial deviations in the importance of global and group-specific factors. Remarkably, when the groups are defined properly, the “global business cycle” accounts for only a very small fraction of macroeconomic fluctuations, most evidently in the industrialized world. The group-specific factors, on the other hand, play a much greater role for national business cycles than previously thought—also in the pre-globalization period.