This paper investigates the relationship between heterogeneity in sectoral price stickiness and the response of the economy to aggregate real shocks. We show that sectoral heterogeneity reduces inflation persistence for a constant average duration of price spells, and that inflation persistence can fall despite duration increases associated with increases in heterogeneity. We also find that sectoral heterogeneity reduces the persistence and volatility of interest rate and output gap for a constant price spells duration, while the qualitative impact on inflation volatility tends to be positive. A relevant policy implication is that neglecting price stickiness heterogeneity can impair the economic dynamics assessment.

We give an overview of the "German model" of industrial relations. We organize our review by focusing on the two pillars of the model: sectoral collective bargaining and firm-level codetermination. Relative to the United States, Germany outsources collective bargaining to the sectoral level, resulting in higher coverage and the avoidance of firm-level distributional conflict. Relative to other European countries, Germany makes it easy for employers to avoid coverage or use flexibility provisions to deviate downwards from collective agreements. The greater flexibility of the German system may reduce unemployment, but may also erode bargaining coverage and increase inequality. Meanwhile, firm-level codetermination through worker board representation and works councils creates cooperative dialogue between employers and workers. Board representation has few direct impacts owing to worker representatives' minority vote share, but works councils, which hold a range of substantive powers, may be more impactful. Overall, the German model highlights tensions between efficiency-enhancing flexibility and equity-enhancing collective action. 

The world price of oil is determined by the interactions of multiple producers and consumers who face different constraints and shocks. We show how this feature of the oil market can be used to estimate local and global elasticities of supply and demand and provide a rich set of testable restrictions. We develop a novel approach to estimation based on full-information maximum likelihood that generalizes the insights from granular instrumental variables. We conclude that the supply responses of Saudi Arabia and adjustments of inventories have historically played a key role in stabilizing the price of oil. We illustrate how our structural model can be used to analyze how individual producers and consumers would dynamically adapt to a geopolitical event such as a major disruption in the supply of oil from Russia.

The substantial fluctuations in oil prices in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have highlighted the importance of tail events in the global market for crude oil which call for careful risk assessment. In this paper we focus on forecasting tail risks in the oil market by setting up a general empirical framework that allows for flexible predictive distributions of oil prices that can depart from normality. This model, based on Bayesian additive regression trees, remains agnostic on the functional form of the conditional mean relations and assumes that the shocks are driven by a stochastic volatility model. We show that our nonparametric approach improves in terms of tail forecasts upon three competing models: quantile regressions commonly used for studying tail events, the Bayesian VAR with stochastic volatility, and the simple random walk. We illustrate the practical relevance of our new approach by tracking the evolution of predictive densities during three recent economic and geopolitical crisis episodes, by developing consumer and producer distress indices that signal the build-up of upside and downside price risk, and by conducting a risk scenario analysis for 2024.

Climate change and inequality are critical and interrelated defining issues for this century. Despite growing empirical evidence on the economic incidence of climate policies and impacts, mainstream model-based assessments are often silent on the interplay between climate change and economic inequality. For example, all the major model comparisons reviewed in IPCC neglect within-country inequalities. Here we fill this gap by presenting a model ensemble of eight large-scale Integrated Assessment Models belonging to different model paradigms and featuring economic heterogeneity. We study the distributional implications of Paris-aligned climate target of 1.5 degree and include different carbon revenue redistribution schemes. Moreover, we account for the economic inequalities resulting from residual and avoided climate impacts. We find that price-based climate policies without compensatory measures increase economic inequality in most countries and across models. However, revenue redistribution through equal per-capita transfers can offset this effect, leading to on average decrease in the Gini index by almost two points. When climate benefits are included, inequality is further reduced, but only in the long term. Around mid-century, the combination of dried-up carbon revenues and yet limited climate benefits leads to higher inequality under the Paris target than in the Reference scenario, indicating the need for further policy measures in the medium term.

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a datagenerating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidencegenerating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.

This paper analyzes the effects of bank capital regulation on the link between bank size and volatility. Using bank-level data for 27 advanced economies over the 2000–2014 period, we estimate a power law that relates the volume of a bank’s loan portfolio to the volatility of loan growth. Our analysis reveals, first, that more stringent capital regulation weakens the size-volatility nexus. Hence, in countries with more stringent capital regulation, large banks show, ceteris paribus, lower loan portfolio volatility. Second, the effect of tighter capital requirements on the size-volatility nexus becomes stronger for the upper tail of the bank size distribution. This is in line with capitalization decreasing with bank size, such that larger banks tend to be more affected by increasing capital requirements. Third, in countries with higher sectoral capital buffers, the size-volatility nexus is weaker.