论文部分内容阅读
本文在结构向量自回归模型中,利用Gali(1999)的分析方法把经济中的冲击分解为技术冲击和非技术冲击,使用Blanchard and Quah(1989)方法识别,实证分析得出的主要结论有:①生产率水平对技术冲击在一定时期内表现为持续上升的驼峰特征;②劳动就业对正的技术冲击表现为先是立即下降,随后持续上升并回到初始状态,而它对正的非技术冲击表现为在一定时期内先升后降的驼峰特征;③技术冲击能解释很大一部分生产率与劳动就业的负相关性。把以上结论与RBC模型的分析结果相比较,发现:中国生产率水平、劳动就业数据的特征与标准真实周期RBC模型分析结果不一致,这从实证分析上对中国RBC模型研究提供了一个质疑的视角。
In the structural vector autoregressive model, the impact of the economy is decomposed into technical shocks and non-technological shocks using the analytical method of Gali (1999), which is identified by the method of Blanchard and Quah (1989). The main conclusions drawn from the empirical analysis are as follows: ① The impact of productivity on technology shocks shows the rising hump characteristics in a certain period of time. ② The positive impact of employment on labor is that the technical shock first drops immediately and then continues to rise and returns to the initial state, while its positive non-technical impact performance As the hump feature that rose first and then decreased in a certain period of time; ③ The technical shock can explain a large part of the negative correlation between productivity and employment. Comparing the above conclusions with the results of RBC model, we find that the characteristics of China’s productivity and labor employment data are inconsistent with those of RBC model, which provides a questionable perspective on the research of China’s RBC model from the empirical analysis.