Abramovitz, M. 1950. Inventories and Business Cycles. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Bec, F., O. Bouabdallah, and L. Ferrara. 2011. “The Possible Shapes of Recoveries in Markov Switching Models.” Working Paper 2011–02, CREST.Google Scholar
Bec, F., O. Bouabdallah, and L. Ferrara. 2013. “The way out of recessions: A forecasting analysis for some Euro area countries. International Journal of Forecasting, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2013.01.004.Crossref
Costantini, M., and R. Kunst. 2011. “On the Usefulness of the Diebold-Mariano Test in the Selection of Prediction Models: Some Monte Carlo Evidence.” Working Paper 276, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna.Google Scholar
Davies, R. B. 1987. “Hypothesis Testing when a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only Under the Alternative.” Biometrika 74: 33–43.Google Scholar
Diebold, F., and R. Mariano. 1995. “Comparing Predictive Accuracy.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 13(3): 253–263.Google Scholar
Eichenbaum, M. 1989. “Some Empirical Evidence on the Production Level and Production Cost Smoothing Models of Inventories.” American Economic Review 79(4): 853–864.Google Scholar
Kahn, J. 1987. “Inventories and the Volatility of Production.” The American Economic Review 77(4): 667–679.Google Scholar
Kahn, J., and J. Thomas. 2007. “Inventories and the Business Cycle: An Equilibrium Analysis of (S,s) Policies.” The American Economic Review 97(4): 1169–1188.Google Scholar
Kryvtsov, O., and V. Midrigan. 2010. “Inventories and Real Rigidities in New Keynesian Business Cycle Models. Journal of The Japanese and International Economies 24: 259–281.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Sichel, E. 1994. “Inventories and the Three Phases of the Business Cycles.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 12(3): 269–277.Google Scholar
Wang, P., Y. Wen, and Z. Xu. 2011. “When do Inventories Destabilize the Economy? An Analytical Approach to (S,s) Policies.” Working Paper 014, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.Google Scholar
Wang, P., and Y. Wen. 2009. “Inventory Accelerator in General Equilibrium.” Working Paper 010, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.Google Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2013-04-02
Published in Print: 2013-05-01
See Blinder (1986) for a detailed presentation of the production smoothing model and how it may be amended to somehow reconcile its implications to the stylized facts.
See also Blinder (1981), Blinder and Maccini (1991), Kahn and Thomas (2007). In the model proposed by the latter, inventories arise as a result of non-convex delivery costs. To economize on such costs, firms hold stocks, making active adjustments only when these stocks are sufficiently far from a target. This behavior grounds the so-called (S, s) rule.
Eichenbaum (1989) has first developed this motive in a partial equilibrium setup.
See Kahn (1987), Bils and Kahn (2000), Kryvtsov and Midrigan (2009, 2010), Wen (2011).
The idea that firm-level (S, s) policy can spread throughout sectors and/or the whole economy was further explored by Cooper and Haltiwanger (1992) who consider an economy consisting in a retailer for final goods and two manufacturers who produce intermediate goods. They show that a high cost to hold inventories for the manufacturers will imply a production bunching in the manufacturers sector even though it has rising marginal costs: this stems from the bunching of orders by the retail sector as in the (S, s) model.
See Kim, Morley, and Piger (2005) or Morley and Piger (2012) for an extension of the Markov-Switching model which allows bounce-back effects.
See Bec, Bouabdallah, and Ferrara (2011, 2013) for a detailed description of these functions.
The series ID number is P54. Inventory investment is measured by the INSEE as the difference between the national sources and uses other than inventories, namely intermediate consumption, final consumption, gross fixed capital formation and exports.
According to Bec, Bouabdallah, and Ferrara (2011), four recessions occurred in France over the sample under study: 1974Q4–1975Q2, 1980Q2–1980Q4, 1992Q4–1993Q2, 2008Q2–2009Q3. For the US, we use the NBER recession dates.
Notice that the threshold parameter is estimated from a grid search leaving at least 5% of the observations in the lower regime. Hence, this constraint is not binding.
We have deliberately chosen not to present Diebold and Mariano (1995) type of tests for the statistical comparison of the predictive accuracy of the different models. First, there are two traditional arguments against their use: i) classical testing with implausible null implies a sizeable small-sample bias in favor of this null and ii) the original forecast comparison, based, e.g., on Mean squared Errors, is a strong model selection tool on its own grounds [see amongst others Wei (1992), Inoue and Kilian (2006) or Ing (2007) on this point]. Then, as shown in Costantini and Kunst (2011), the small sample bias toward the Diebold-Mariano like null and toward simplicity is especially true when the true DGP is a Threshold Auto-Regression process.