Abstract
AbstractWe study Switzerland’s weak growth during the 1990s through the lens of the business cycle accounting framework of Chari et al. (Econometrica 75(3):781–836, 2007). Our main result is that weak productivity growth cannot account for the 1993–1996 stagnation episode. Rather, the stagnation is explained by factors that made labour and investment expensive. We show that increased labour income taxes and financial frictions are plausible causes. Holding these factors constant, the counterfactual annualized real output growth over the 1993Q1–1996Q4 period is 1.93% compared to realized growth of 0.35%.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Statistics and Probability
Reference35 articles.
1. Abrahamsen, Y., Aeppli, R., Atukeren, E., Graff, M., Müller, C., & Schips, B. (2005). The Swiss disease: Facts and artefacts. A reply to Kehoe and Prescott. Review of Economic Dynamics, 8(3), 749–758.
2. Adamek, J. (2011). Three essays in applied macroeconomics. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bern.
3. Baltensperger, E. (2005). Mut zum Aufbruch: 10 Jahre danach. Orell Füessli Verlag.
4. Bodmer, F. (2004). Ausmass und Gründe der Wirtschaftskrise der 90er Jahre. WWZ-Forschungsbericht 06/04-c. Resource document. Retrieved April 24, 2021 from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/127493
5. Brinca, P. (2014). Distortions in the neoclassical growth model: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 47, 1–19.