Helsinki Center of Economic Research (HECER) discussion papers

 

ISSN 1795-0562

Recent Submissions

  • Kanniainen, Vesa; Mellin, Ilkka (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2017)
    HECER, Discussion Paper, No. 408
    The aggregate economic development of Finland and Sweden defined by the growth of the real Gross Domestic Products (GDPs) advanced in tandem for a long time. The current paper provides a descriptive statistical analysis producing stylized facts of the co-development of the two neighboring countries. Using various statistical techniques, the paper documents that the tandem is over. The paper identifies the break-up point in 2007 when the financial crisis started to culminate peaking in 2008-2009. The key test on the duration of the economic tandem will be provided by the forecast ability of the statistical vector autoregressive model to be identified and estimated for GDPs of the two countries. The stability of the model is used as a statistical criterion. A rich set of results on the comparative volatility and instability, the steepness of recessions, and the diverging welfare of the two economies are reported. In particular, it is estimated that the cumulative welfare gap between the countries, measured by the cumulative prediction error of the model in the post-tandem period 2008/1 - 2015/1 is 47.9 per cent.
  • Silvo, Aino (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2017)
    HECER, Discussion Paper, No. 407
  • Puonti, Päivi (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper, No. 406
  • Ledyayeva, Svetlana (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper, No. 405
  • Salonen, Hannu (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper, No. 404
  • Gillanders, Robert; Neselevska, Olga (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper, No. 403
  • Huotari, Antti (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper No. 402
  • Halko, Marja-Liisa; Miettinen, Topi (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper No. 401
  • Hämäläinen, Saara (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper No. 400
  • Hämäläinen, Saara (HECER, Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper No. 399
  • Hämäläinen, Saara (HECER - Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2016)
    HECER, Discussion Paper No. 398
  • Pönkä, Harri (HECER - Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2015)
    HECER, Discussion Paper 397
  • Halko, Marja-Liisa; Sääksvuori, Lauri (HECER - Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2015)
    HECER Discussion Paper No. 396
  • Silvo, Aino (HECER - Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2015)
    HECER Discussion Paper No.395
    I analyse the dynamics of a New Keynesian DSGE model where the financing of investments is affected by a moral hazard problem. I solve for jointly Ramsey-optimal monetary and macroprudential policies. I find that when there is a financial friction besides the standard nominal friction, the optimal policy can replicate the first-best if the social planner can conduct both monetary and macroprudential policy to control both inflation and the level of investments. Using monetary policy alone is not enough to fully stabilise the economy: it leads to a policy trade-off between stabilising inflation and the output gap. When policy follows simple rules instead, the source of fluctuations is highly relevant for the choice of the appropriate policy mix. JEL Classification: E32, E44, E52, G28 Keywords: monetary policy, macroprudential policy, financial frictions
  • Puonti, Päivi (HECER – Helsinki Center of Economic Research,, 2015)
    HECER Discussion Paper No. 394
    This paper estimates the effects of fiscal policy shocks on GDP in the United States with a vector error correction (VEC) model where shocks are identified by exploiting the nonnormal distribution of the model residuals. Unlike previous research, the model used here takes into account cointegation between the variables and identifies fiscal policy shocks without imposing any restrictions. The approach also allows statistical testing of previous identification strategies, which may help discriminate between them and hence also explain differences between various fiscal multiplier estimates. According to the results, a deficit financed government spending shock has a weak negative effect on output, whereas a tax raise to finance government spending has a positive impact on GDP.