In this paper, I try to shed some new light on the “puzzle” of why the Lucas critique, believed to be important by most economists, seems to have received very little empirical support. I use a real-business-cycle model to verify that the Lucas critique is quantitatively important in theory, and to examine the properties of the super-exogeneity test, which is used to detect the applicability of the Lucas critique in practice. The results suggest that the superexogeneity test is not capable of detecting the relevance of the Lucas critique in practice in small samples. (JEL C52, C22, E41)
Existing empirical evidence suggests that real exchange rates exhibit hump-shaped dynamics. I show that this is a robust fact across nine large, developed economies. This fact can help explain why sticky price business cycle models have been unable to match the persistence of the real exchange rate. I show that, in response to a number of different real shocks, a two-country sticky price business cycle model yields hump-shaped dynamics for the real exchange rate. The hump-shaped dynamics generated by the model are a powerful source of endogenous persistence that allows the model to match the long half-life of the real exchange rate. (JEL F31)
Testing for the Lucas Critique: A Quantitative Investigation