Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics

Ed. by Mizrach, Bruce

5 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.855

CiteScore 2017: 0.76

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.668
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.894

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 0.02

Online
ISSN
1558-3708
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 17, Issue 3

Issues

Inventory investment and the business cycle: the usual suspect

Frédérique Bec
  • Corresponding author
  • THEMA, University Cergy-Pontoise and CREST, 15 bd Gabriel Peri, F-92245 Malakoff Cedex, France
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Melika Ben Salem
Published Online: 2013-04-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2012-0041

Abstract

From quarterly postwar US and French data, this paper provides evidence of a bounce-back effect in inventory investment but not in final sales data. Actually, from a bounce-back augmented threshold model, it appears that i) the null hypothesis of no bounce-back effect is strongly rejected by the inventory investment data and ii) the one-step ahead forecasting performances of the models accounting for this bounce-back effect are well improved compared to linear or standard threshold autoregressions. This supports the conventional wisdom that inventory investment exacerbates aggregate fluctuations, in line with the recent theoretical models by, e.g., Wang and Wen (Wang, P., and Y. Wen. 2009. “Inventory Accelerator in General Equilibrium.” Working Paper 010, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) and Wang, Wen and Xu (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) which clearly predict a destabilizing role of inventory investment over the business cycle. By contrast, our empirical findings cast doubt on models based on the stockouts avoidance motive for holding inventories.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: inventory investment; threshold models; bounce-back effects; asymmetric business cycles

References

  • 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

  • Bils, M., and J. Kahn. 2000. “What Inventory Behavior Tells Us About Business Cycles.” The American Economic Review 90(3): 458–481.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blinder, A., 1981. “Retail Inventory Behavior and Business Fluctuations.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 443–505.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blinder, A., 1986. “Can the Production Smoothing Model of Inventory Behavior be Saved.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 101(3): 431–453.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blinder, A., and L. Maccini. 1991. “Taking Stock: A Critical Assessment of Recent Research on Inventories.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 73–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cooper, R., and J. Haltiwanger. 1992. “Macroeconomic Implications of Production Bunching: Factor Demand Linkages.” Journal of Monetary Economics 30(1): 107–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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

  • Hansen, B. 1996. “Inference when a Nuisance Parameter is Not Identified Under the Null Hypothesis.” Econometrica 64(2): 413–430.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ing, C. K. 2007. “Accumulated Prediction Errors, Information Criteria and Optimal Forecasting for Autoregressive Time Series.” Annals of Statistics 35: 1238–1277.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Inoue, A., and L. Kilian. 2006. “On the Selection of Forecasting Models.” Journal of Econometrics 130: 273–306.CrossrefGoogle 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

  • Kim, C.-J., J. Morley, and J. Piger. 2005. “Nonlinearity and the Permanent Effects of Recessions.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 20: 291–309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kryvtsov, O., and V. Midrigan. 2009. “Inventories, Markups, and Real Rigidities in Menu Cost Models.” Working Paper 14651, NBER.Web of ScienceGoogle 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

  • Morley, J., and J. Piger. 2012. “The Asymmetric Business Cycle.” Review of Economics and Statistics 94: 208–221.CrossrefGoogle 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

  • Wei, C. 1992. “On Predictive Least Squares Principles.” Annals of Statistics 20: 1–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wen, Y. 2011. “Input and Output Inventory Dynamics.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 3: 1–33.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Frédérique Bec, THEMA, University Cergy-Pontoise and CREST, 15 bd Gabriel Peri, F-92245 Malakoff Cedex, France


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.


Citation Information: Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 335–343, ISSN (Online) 1558-3708, ISSN (Print) 1081-1826, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2012-0041.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in