


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front  Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>ii</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Woodford</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>35</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper explains the key factors that determine the output multiplier of government purchases in New Keynesian models, through a series of simple examples that can be solved analytically. Sticky prices or wages allow for larger multipliers than in a neoclassical model, though the size of the multiplier depends crucially on the monetary policy response. A multiplier well in excess of one is possible when monetary policy is constrained by the zero lower bound, and in this case welfare increases if government purchases expand to partially fill the output gap that arises from the inability to lower interest rates. (JEL E12, E23, E32, E62, H20, H50)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.1</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Industry Evidence on the Effects of Government Spending</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Christopher J.</gnm><snm>Nekarda</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Valerie A.</gnm><snm>Ramey</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>36</ppf>
<ppl>59</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper investigates the effects of government purchases at the industry level in order to shed light on the transmission mechanism for government spending on the aggregate economy. We create a new panel dataset that matches output and labor variables to industry-specific shifts in government demand. An increase in government demand raises output and hours, lowers real product wages and labor productivity, and has no effect on the markup. The estimates
also imply approximately constant returns to scale. The findings are more consistent with the effects of government spending in the neoclassical
model than the textbook New Keynesian model. (JEL E12, E23, E62, H50)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.36</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.36</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2010-0019_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2010-0019_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Sticky Prices versus Monetary Frictions: An Estimation of Policy Trade-Offs</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>S. Bora&#287;an</gnm><snm>Aruoba</snm><aff>U MD</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Frank</gnm><snm>Schorfheide</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>60</ppf>
<ppl>90</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a two-sector monetary model with a centralized and decentralized market. Activities in the centralized market resemble those in a standard New Keynesian economy with price rigidities. In the decentralized market agents engage in bilateral exchanges for
which money is essential. This paper is the first to formally estimate such a model, evaluate its fit based on postwar US data, and assess its money demand properties. Steady-state welfare calculations reveal that the distortions created by the monetary friction may be of similar magnitude as the distortions created by the New Keynesian friction. (JEL C54, E12, E31, E41, E52)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.60</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.60</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2009-0177_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2009-0177_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Pricing-to-Market and the Failure of Absolute PPP</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>George</gnm><snm>Alessandria</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Joseph P.</gnm><snm>Kaboski</snm><aff>U Notre Dame</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>91</ppf>
<ppl>127</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show that deviations from the law of one price in tradable goods are an important source of violations of absolute purchasing power parity. Using highly disaggregated export data, we document systematic international price discrimination: at the US dock, low-income countries pay lower prices. This pricing-to-market is about twice as important as local nontraded inputs for differences in tradable prices. We propose a model of consumer search and pricing-to-market in which consumers in low-income countries have a comparative advantage in nontraded, nonmarket search activities. Evidence from cross-country time-use studies and US export prices supports the model. (JEL E31, F14)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.91</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.91</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2008-0075_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2008-0075_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Worker Heterogeneity and Endogenous Separations in a Matching Model of Unemployment Fluctuations</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Mark</gnm><snm>Bils</snm><aff>U Rochester</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Yongsung</gnm><snm>Chang</snm><aff>U Rochester and Yonsei U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Sun-Bin</gnm><snm>Kim</snm><aff>Yonsei U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>128</ppf>
<ppl>54</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We model worker heterogeneity in the rents from being employed in a Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides model of matching and unemployment. We show that heterogeneity, reflecting differences in match quality and worker assets, reduces the extent of fluctuations in separations and unemployment. We find that the model faces a trade-off&#8212;it cannot produce both realistic dispersion in wage growth across workers and realistic cyclical fluctuations in unemployment. (JEL
D31, E24, E32, J41, J63)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.128</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.128</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2009-0109_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Bank Integration and Transmission of Financial Shocks: Evidence from Japan</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Masami</gnm><snm>Imai</snm><aff>Wesleyan U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Seitaro</gnm><snm>Takarabe</snm><aff>Mitsubishi Corporation, Tokyo</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>155</ppf>
<ppl>83</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper investigates whether banking integration plays an important role in transmitting financial shocks across geographical boundaries by using a dataset on the branch network of nationwide city banks and prefecture-level dataset on the formation and collapse of the real estate bubble in Japan. The results show that the credit and economic cycle of financially integrated prefectures exhibits higher sensitivity to fluctuation in land prices in cities relative to financially isolated ones. These results suggest nationwide banks can be a source of economic volatility when they pass on the impacts of financial shocks to host economies. (JEL E44, G21, R30)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.155</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.155</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2009-0092_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2009-0092_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Professional Forecasters' View of Permanent and Transitory Shocks to GDP</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Spencer D.</gnm><snm>Krane</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>184</ppf>
<ppl>211</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper examines how the professional forecasters comprising the
Blue Chip Economic Consensus view shocks to GDP. I use an unobserved components model of the forecast revisions to identify forecasters'
perceptions of permanent and transitory shocks to GDP. The model indicates forecasters: attribute about two-thirds of the variance in current-period revisions to permanent shocks; view the relative importance of permanent shocks similar to the estimates of some simple univariate econometric models; see high-frequency indicators of economic activity as being informative about both permanent and transitory shocks; and react to incoming data differently during periods of economic weakness. (JEL C51, C53, E23, E27, E32, E37)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.184</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.184</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2008-0046_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Housing Bubbles</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>&Oacute;scar</gnm><snm>Arce</snm><aff>CNMV, Madrid</aff></au>
<au><gnm>David</gnm><snm>L&oacute;pez-Salido</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>212</ppf>
<ppl>41</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use the notion of a housing bubble as an equilibrium in which some investors hold houses for resale purposes only and not with the expectation of receiving a dividend, either in the form of rent or utility. We show that an economy with looser collateral constraints is less prone to bubbles, which, in turn, have smaller size, but are more fragile in the face of credit-crunch shocks. Our environment
also allows for the existence of pure bubbles on unproductive assets. We find that multiple equilibria, in which the economy moves endogenously from a pure bubble to a housing bubble and vice versa, are possible. (JEL G12, R21, R31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.212</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.212</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2008-0023_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>3</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2011</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=3&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Exclusive Goods and Formal-Sector Employment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Reto</gnm><snm>Foellmi</snm><aff>U Berne</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Josef</gnm><snm>Zweim&uuml;ller</snm><aff>Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, U Zurich and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>242</ppf>
<ppl>72</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We explore how the underemployment problem of less-developed economies is related to income inequality. Consumers have nonhomothetic preferences over differentiated products of formal-sector
goods and thus inequality affects the composition of aggregate demand via the price-setting behavior of firms. We find that high inequality divides the formal sector into mass producers and exclusive producers (which serve only the rich); high inequality generates an
equilibrium where many workers are crowded into the informal economy; and an increase in subsistence productivity raises the unskilled workers' wages and boosts employment due to the higher purchasing power of poorer households. (JEL D31, D43, E24, E26, J24)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.3.1.242</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.3.1.242</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


