Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2017 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2

A Note on Labor-Search Models

Emek-Arama Modelleri Üzerine Bir Not

Pages
49–71
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, my findings point to the particular need for further exploring the degree of co-movement between wage rate and nonmarket activity in labor-search modelling attempts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, I revisit the “Shimer puzzle” by comparing business-cycle properties of three prominent labor-search models.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Providing a standard framework for contrasting the three models, I first quantify the sensitivity of Shimer (2005)’s relative labor market tightness volatility to business cycle smoothing parametrization.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, my findings point to the particular need for further exploring the degree of co-movement between wage rate and nonmarket activity in labor-search modelling attempts.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this paper, I revisit the “Shimer puzzle” by comparing business-cycle properties of three prominent labor-search models. Providing a standard framework for contrasting the three models, I first quantify the sensitivity of Shimer (2005)’s relative labor market tightness volatility to business cycle smoothing parametrization. Second, I document that Hagedorn and Manovskii (2008)’s proposed solution to the Shimer puzzle depends considerably on whether the value of nonmarket activity responds to business cycle fluctuations. Third, I report that when specified in the form of a decreasing-returns-toscale functional form, the incorporation of decreasing average vacancy posting costs by Pissarides (2009) cannot generate decent business-cycle volatilities in the absence of further wage stickiness. Overall, my findings point to the particular need for further exploring the degree of co-movement between wage rate and nonmarket activity in labor-search modelling attempts.

Özet

Bu makale, üç farklı emek-arama model spesifikasyonunun iş döngüsü performanslarını karşılaştırarak “Shimer bulmacasını” yeniden ziyaret etmektedir. Üç model için standart bir çerçeve oluşturduktan sonra ilk olarak Shimer’in (2005)’ın işgücü piyasasındaki sıkılığın verimlilik oranına olan düşük oynaklık sonucunun iş döngüsü yumuşatma parametresine duyarlılığı ölçülmüştür. İkinci olarak Hagedorn ve Manovskii (2008)’nin Shimer bulmacasına önerdiği çözümün pazardışı etkinliğin iş döngüsü dalgalanmalarına bağlılığı ortaya konmuştur. Üçüncü olarak Pissarides (2009) tarafından öne sürülen azalan ortalama iş ilanı masraf fikrinin azalan-getiri-dönüş fonksiyonel formu ile formüle edilmesinin yapışkan ücretler noksanlığında iyi iş döngüsü oynaklıkları sağlayamadığı bildirilmektedir. Genel olarak, tüm bu bulgular ücret oranı ile pazardışı aktivitenin beraber hareketlilik oranının daha iyi emek-arama modelleme için araştırılması ihtiyacını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TORUL, O. (2022). A Note on Labor-Search Models. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2, 49–71. https://ajindex.com/articles/467353

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Silva, J.I. and Toledo, M. (2013). The Unemployment Volatility Puzzle: The Role of Matching Costs Revisited. Economic Inquiry, 51(1): 83-843
  2. Shimer, R. (2010). Labor Markets and Business Cycles. Princeton University Press Shimer, R. (2005). “The Cyclical Behavior of Equilibrium Unemployment and Vacancies,” The American Economic Review, 95(1): 25-49.
  3. Shapiro, C. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1984). “Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device,” The American Economic Review, 74(3): 433-444. Schmitt-Grohé, S. and Uribe, M. (2004). “Solving Dynamic General Equilibrium Models Using a Second-Order Approximation to the Policy Function,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control,” 28(4): 755-775.
  4. Rubinstein, A. (1982). “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,” Econometrica, 60(1): 97-109.
  5. Rosen, S. (1985). “Implicit Contracts: A Survey,” Journal of Economic Literature, 23(3): 1144-1175.
  6. Pissarides, C.A. (2009). “The Unemployment Volatility Puzzle: Is Wage Stickiness the Answer?” Econometrica, 77(5): 1339-1369.
  7. Mortensen, D.T. and Pissarides, C.A. (1994). “Job Creation and Job Destruction in the Theory of Unemployment,” The Review of Economic Studies, 61(3): 397-415.
  8. Merz, M. (1995). “Search in the Labor Market and the Real Business Cycle,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 36(2): 269-300.
  9. Hodrick, R.J. and Prescott, E.C. (1997). “Postwar US Business Cycles: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 29(1): 1-16.
  10. Hansen, G.D. (1985). “Indivisible Labor and the Business Cycle,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 16(3): 309-327.
  11. Hagedorn, M. and Manovskii, I. (2008). “The Cyclical Behavior of Equilibrium Unemployment and Vacancies Revisited,” The American Economic Review, 98(4): 1692-1706.
  12. Andolfatto, D. (1996). “Business Cycles and Labor-Market Search,” The American Economic Review,” 86(1): 112-132.