Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/33193 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2005
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 1765
Verlag: 
Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
Zusammenfassung: 
Shimer (2005a) argues that the Mortensen-Pissarides equilibrium search model of unemployment explains only about 10% of the response in the job-finding rate to an aggregate productivity shock. Some of the recent papers inspired by his critique are reviewed and commented on here. Specifically, we suggest that the sole problem is neither the procyclicality of the wage nor the failure to account fully for the opportunity cost of employment. Although an amended version of the model, one that accounts for capital costs and counter cyclic involuntary separations, does much better, it still explains only 40% of the observed volatility of the job-finding rate. Finally, allowing for on-the-job search does not improve the amended model's implications for the amplification of productivity shocks.
Schlagwörter: 
labor market search
unemployment and vacancies volatility
job-finding rate
productivity shocks
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
286.66 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.