scholarly journals Is Lumpy Investment Relevant for the Business Cycle?

2002 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia K. Thomas
2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Bachmann ◽  
Ricardo J. Caballero ◽  
Eduardo M. R. A. Engel

The sensitivity of US aggregate investment to shocks is procyclical. The response upon impact increases by approximately 50 percent from the trough to the peak of the business cycle. This feature of the data follows naturally from a DSGE model with lumpy microeconomic capital adjustment. Beyond explaining this specific time variation, our model and evidence provide a counterexample to the claim that microeconomic investment lumpiness is inconsequential for macroeconomic analysis. (JEL E13, E22, E32)


CFA Digest ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Cashion

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Pablo Mejía-Reyes

This paper aims to document expansions and recessions characteristics for 17 states of Mexico over the period 1993-2006 by using a classical business cycle approach. We use the manufacturing production index for each state as the business cycle indicator since it is the only output measure available on a monthly basis. According to this approach, we analyse asymmetries in mean, volatility and duration as well as synchronisation over the business cycle regimes (expansions and recessions) for each case. Our results indicate that recessions are less persistent and more volatile (in general) than expansions in most Mexican states; yet, there is no clear cut evidence on mean asymmetries. In turn, there seems to be strong links between the business cycle regimes within the Northern and Central regions of the country and between states with similar industrialisation patterns, although it is difficult to claim that a national business cycle exists.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document