Volume 13 (2013)
Volume 12 (2012)
Volume 11 (2011)
Volume 10 (2010)
Volume 9 (2009)
Volume 8 (2008)
Volume 7 (2007)
Volume 6 (2006)
Volume 5 (2005)
Volume 4 (2004)
Volume 3 (2003)
Volume 2 (2002)
Most Downloaded Articles
- Comparing Wealth Effects: The Stock Market versus the Housing Market by Case, Karl E./ Quigley, John M. and Shiller, Robert J.
- Who Gets the Credit? And Does It Matter? Household vs. Firm Lending Across Countries by Beck, Thorsten/ Büyükkarabacak, Berrak/ Rioja, Felix K. and Valev, Neven T.
- Monetary and Macroprudential Policy Rules in a Model with House Price Booms by Kannan, Prakash/ Rabanal, Pau and Scott, Alasdair M.
- Is Discretionary Fiscal Policy in Japan Effective? by Rafiq, Sohrab
- In search of lost time: the neoclassical synthesis by De Vroey, Michel and Duarte, Pedro Garcia
On Modeling the Effects of Inflation Shocks: Comments and Some Further Evidence
1Stockholm School of Economics, firstname.lastname@example.org
Citation Information: Contributions in Macroeconomics. Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages –, ISSN (Online) 1534-6005, DOI: 10.2202/1534-6005.1068, January 2003
- Published Online:
Fair (2002) argues that New Keynesian models are wrong in predicting that an inflation shock has contractionary effects only if it raises the real interest rate, and that a coefficient on inflation higher than one in the Taylor rule is a necessary condition for stability. While Fair uses his macroeconometric model as a benchmark to evaluate the predictions of the standard New Keynesian framework, we adopt a VAR supported by models in that framework, and the model of Rudebusch and Svensson (1999). The findings are broadly in line with Fair's.