"Production, growth, and business cycles I: The basic neoclassical model," Journal of Monetary Economics 21(2), March 1988, pp. 195-232
By J. Hartley, Kevin D. Hoover, Kevin D. Salyer. 2013
342 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/210d42e9627403c6753f3f0690dbffca0d176662
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Christian Bayer
- Ralph Lütticke
- Lien Pham-Do
- Volker Tjaden
- Dimitris Papanikolaou
- Muhammad Shahbaz
- R. Luetticke
- Eduardo Abi Jaber
Citations in the corpus
- News Shocks in Open Economies: Evidence from Giant Oil Discoveries (2015, unknown): “Sector 2 is the oil sector, which uses capital, labor, and the stock of producing oil reserves with a Cobb-Douglas production: , , , , (3) 6 Jaimovich and Rebelo (2008, 2009) use more general preferences that nest both GHH and King, Plosser, and Rebelo (1988) preferences.”
- Identification in Macroeconomics (2017, background): “Prominent examples in addition to those discussed above include the RBC literature (Kydland and Prescott, 1982; King and Rebelo, 1999), the Shimer puzzle literature (Shimer, 2005), the misallocation literature (Hsieh and Klenow, 2009), the literature on exchange rate disconnect (Meese and Rogoff,…”
- Precautionary Savings, Illiquid Assets, and the Aggregate Consequences of Shocks to Household Income Risk (2019, background): “On the other hand, Auclert and Rognlie (2017) show that under Greenwood, Hercowitz, and Huffman (1988) preferences, monetary and fiscal multipliers tend to be larger than under King, Plosser, and Rebelo (1988) preferences.”
- Investment Shocks and Asset Prices (2011, background): “The main reason is the specification of King et al. (1988) preferences over consumption and leisure: the strong income effect implied by these preferences results in labor supply being unresponsive to the consumption productivity shock.”