Impulse Response Analysis in a Misspecified DSGE Model: A Comparison of Full and Limited Information Techniques
Sebastian Giesen, Rolf Scheufele
Applied Economics Letters,
No. 3,
2016
Abstract
In this article, we examine the effect of estimation biases – introduced by model misspecification – on the impulse responses analysis for dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models. Thereby, we use full and limited information estimators to estimate a misspecified DSGE model and calculate impulse response functions (IRFs) based on the estimated structural parameters. It turns out that IRFs based on full information techniques can be unreliable under misspecification.
Read article
Effects of Incorrect Specification on the Finite Sample Properties of Full and Limited Information Estimators in DSGE Models
Sebastian Giesen, Rolf Scheufele
Journal of Macroeconomics,
June
2016
Abstract
In this paper we analyze the small sample properties of full information and limited information estimators in a potentially misspecified DSGE model. Therefore, we conduct a simulation study based on a standard New Keynesian model including price and wage rigidities. We then study the effects of omitted variable problems on the structural parameter estimates of the model. We find that FIML performs superior when the model is correctly specified. In cases where some of the model characteristics are omitted, the performance of FIML is highly unreliable, whereas GMM estimates remain approximately unbiased and significance tests are mostly reliable.
Read article
Effects of Incorrect Specification on the Finite Sample Properties of Full and Limited Information Estimators in DSGE Models
Sebastian Giesen, Rolf Scheufele
Abstract
In this paper we analyze the small sample properties of full information and limited information estimators in a potentially misspecified DSGE model. Therefore, we conduct a simulation study based on a standard New Keynesian model including price and wage rigidities. We then study the effects of omitted variable problems on the structural parameters estimates of the model. We find that FIML performs superior when the model is correctly specified. In cases where some of the model characteristics are omitted, the performance of FIML is highly unreliable, whereas GMM estimates remain approximately unbiased and significance tests are mostly reliable.
Read article
