This setting lets you change the way you view articles. You can choose to have articles open in a dialog window, a new tab, or directly in the same window.
Open in Dialog
Open in New Tab
Open in same window
Open in New Tab
Open in same window

American Economic Review: Vol. 99 No. 5 (December 2009)
AER Volume. 99, Issue 5 |
Previous ArticleNext Article
Sign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter
AER Forthcoming Articles
Full-text Article
Download Data Set (10.71 KB)
Previous ArticleNext Article
Expand
Quick Tools:
Print Article Summary Email Link to this Article Export CitationSign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter
Explore:
AER Forthcoming Articles
A Comment on the Economics of Labor Adjustment: Mind the Gap: Evidence from a Monte Carlo Experiment
Article Citation
Bayer, Christian. 2009. "A Comment on the Economics of Labor Adjustment: Mind the Gap: Evidence from a Monte Carlo Experiment."
American Economic Review,
99(5): 2258-66.
DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.5.2258
DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.5.2258
Abstract
This comment addresses a point raised in Russell Cooper and Jonathan Willis (2003, 2004), which discusses whether the "gap approach" is appropriate to describe the adjustment of production factors. They show that this approach to labor adjustment as applied in Ricardo J. Caballero, Eduardo Engel, and John C. Haltiwanger (1997) and Caballero and Engel (1993) can falsely generate evidence in favor of nonconvex adjustment costs, even if costs are quadratic. Simulating a dynamic model of firm-level employment decisions with quadratic adjustment costs and estimating a gap model from the simulated data, they identify two factors producing this spurious evidence: approximating dynamic adjustment targets by static ones, and estimating the static targets themselves. This comment reassesses whether the first factor indeed leads to spurious evidence in favor of fixed adjustment costs. We show that the numerical approximation of the productivity process is pivotal for Cooper and Willis's finding. With more precise approximations of the productivity process, it becomes rare to falsely reject the quadratic adjustment cost model due to the approximation of dynamic targets by static ones. (JEL E24, J3)
Article Full-Text Access
Full-text Article
Additional Materials
Download Data Set (10.71 KB)
Authors
Bayer, Christian (IGIER, U Commerciale L Bocconi)
JEL Classifications
E24: Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital
J23: Labor Demand
J23: Labor Demand

