Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2014

Sind RBC-Modelle nützlich?

Chris House findet ja.

Auf seinem Blog schreibt er:
"The Real Business Cycle (RBC) Model receives a lot of criticism from online bloggers and from other economists. A lot of the criticism is justified. The model assumes away all frictions and market failures. [...]

[But] this stark version of the RBC model is not really taken very seriously by researchers anymore — at least with regard to the role of productivity shocks. Better measurement has deprived the canonical RBC model of the innovations necessary to generate cyclical variations in economic activity. [...]

This begs the question: If the RBC model does not survive as a model of actual business cycle fluctuations, why do we still teach it in graduate macroeconomics? [...]

The first answer is due to its prominent historical place in the development of the field. Macroeconomics changed forever after the first-generation RBC models were developed. These models ushered in new methods and techniques many of which are still in use today. [...]

Second, the RBC model is an excellent pedagogical device. The RBC model is almost always the first DSGE model students confront and it is also functioning as the standard backdrop in more advanced DSGE frameworks. Many of the intuitions carry over and present themselves in more modern instances of the model. [...]"
Insbesondere den zweiten Punkt sehe ich genau so. Ich bin kein großer Fan von RBC-Modellen der puren Version - aber man muss sie schon im Bachelor unterrichten, damit Studenten später ein Verständnis für moderne DSGE-Modelle haben können. (Und sei es auch nur, um auch deren Unzulänglichkeiten verstehen zu können.)

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen