Real business-cycle theory

• 1. Foundations And Origins

  ›

  In 1982, Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott published a paper titled Time to Build And Aggregate Fluctuations that changed how economists viewed economic ups and downs. Their work emerged from the new classical macroeconomics tradition, which sought to explain business cycles without relying on nominal shocks like changes in money supply. Before their intervention, monetary economists Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas had proposed in the early 1970s that misperceptions about wages drove booms and recessions. They argued workers made decisions based on whether they thought wages were higher or lower than reality. Perfect information would eliminate these fluctuations entirely according to their framework. Kydland and Prescott shifted focus to real factors instead of nominal ones. They envisioned random technological shifts as the primary driver of economic activity. These shocks could be innovations, bad weather events, oil price spikes, or stricter environmental regulations. The general idea was that something directly altered how effective capital and labor became within an economy.

  12

• 2. Mechanics Of Shocks

  ›

  A positive but temporary shock to productivity momentarily increases the effectiveness of workers and capital. This allows a given level of resources to produce more output than before. Individuals then face two distinct tradeoffs when deciding how to respond. One is the consumption-investment decision where people must choose between spending today or saving for tomorrow. If productivity is high, individuals might consume all extra output immediately. However, those valuing future consumption may invest part of it into capital to enhance production later. This explains why investment spending fluctuates more than consumption does. The life-cycle hypothesis suggests households base decisions on expected lifetime income rather than current earnings alone. Households prefer smooth consumption over time so they save during high-income periods and defer spending until low-income times follow. The other major decision involves the labor-leisure tradeoff. Higher productivity encourages substituting current work for future work since hourly wages rise temporarily. More labor input combined with less leisure results in greater output, consumption, and investment today. An opposing effect exists because higher earnings might reduce desire to work now or in the future. Yet given the procyclical nature of labor observed in data, the substitution effect appears to dominate this income effect. A string of such productivity shocks likely creates booms while recessions follow strings of bad shocks.

  346

• 3. Calibration Methodology

  ›

  To quantitatively match stylized facts found in economic data, Kydland and Prescott introduced calibration techniques. Unlike estimation methods used elsewhere in economics, calibration returns to the drawing board when evidence contradicts a model. It changes the model itself to fit the data instead of testing hypotheses against reality. Since RBC models explain data after the fact, falsifying any single model becomes extremely difficult. These models are highly sample-specific which leads some critics to believe they possess little predictive power. Crucial structural variables like discount rates and capital depreciation rates take plausible values estimated from econometric studies. These estimates usually fall within 95% confidence intervals according to standard practice. If researchers use the full range of possible values for these variables, correlation coefficients between actual and simulated paths shift wildly. Some question how successful a model achieving only an 80% coefficient truly is. The basic RBC model predicts that output, consumption, investment, and labor all rise above long-term trends following temporary shocks. Capital accumulation acts as an internal propagation mechanism increasing persistence even after shocks disappear. Without shocks, economies would continue following growth trends without business cycles appearing at all. Current RBC models have not fully explained every observed behavior yet neoclassical economists search constantly for better variations.

  5

• 4. Policy Implications

  ›

  The main assumption in RBC theory holds that individuals and firms respond optimally over the long run. This implies business cycles exhibited in an economy are chosen preferences rather than failures requiring correction. Slumps occur because undesirable productivity shocks constrain situations but people still achieve best outcomes possible under new constraints. Markets react efficiently given these conditions so recessions represent optimal responses to external changes. When slumps happen, people choose to be in them because it remains the best solution available. This suggests laissez-faire non-intervention represents the ideal government policy toward economic activity. However, given the abstract nature of the model, this conclusion has faced intense debate among scholars. A precursor framework developed by Friedman and Lucas in the early 1970s envisioned misperceptions about wages driving decisions differently. They argued booms and recessions occurred when workers perceived wages incorrectly relative to actual values. Perfect information would eliminate such fluctuations entirely according to their earlier work. Kydland and Prescott shifted focus away from nominal factors toward real technological determinants instead. Their approach strongly associates with freshwater economics within the neoclassical tradition particularly Chicago School thinking. These ideas suggest governments should concentrate on long-term structural change rather than discretionary fiscal or monetary interventions.

• 5. Major Criticisms

  ›

  Real business cycle theory relies on three assumptions that economists like Greg Mankiw and Larry Summers consider unrealistic. First, large sudden changes in production technology drive the entire model yet no microeconomic evidence supports such massive real shocks. Summers noted Prescott could not identify any specific technological shock causing an actual downturn except perhaps the oil price shock during the 1970s. Real business cycle models generally avoid testing against competing alternatives which are easier to support empirically. Second unemployment reflects only changes in how much people want to work according to the theory. Economist Kevin D. Hoover argued this assumption implies 25% unemployment at Great Depression height in 1933 resulted from mass vacation choices. Third monetary policy remains irrelevant to economic fluctuations despite widespread disagreement today. Most economists including new classicists reject the policy-ineffectiveness proposition since wages and prices do not adjust quickly enough to restore equilibrium naturally. Another major criticism states RBC models cannot account for dynamics displayed by United States gross national product data. Larry Summers stated his view that these models have nothing to do with observed business cycle phenomena in capitalist economies. George W. Stadler published findings in December 1994 questioning whether real business cycles truly explain economic behavior as claimed.