The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 433–461 | Cite as

The empirical relevance of the Mises-Hayek theory of the trade cycle

Article

Abstract

Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT), as espoused by Mises (1912, 1949) and Hayek (1935), predicts changes in the economy’s structure of production following an unexpected change in monetary policy. In particular, following a credit expansion the theory predicts that: previously idle resources are drawn into the market, previously employed resources are used more intensively, and prices and quantities of goods in the intermediate stages of production decline relative to the prices and quantities of goods in other stages. To test the theory’s implications we employ stage of process data which classify goods by their distance to final consumption. Using this data we run structural vector autoregressions and isolate each variable’s response to a monetary shock. Consistent with the theory, we find that resource use expands on the intensive and extensive margin. On the other hand, we find little evidence of the relative price and quantity effects predicted by ABCT. Since the relative price effects are the distinguishing aspect of ABCT, we conclude that evidence in favor of the theory is, at best, mixed.

JEL Classifications

E32 E52 E53 

References

  1. Barro, R.J., & Gordon, D.B. (1983). Rules, discretion and reputation in a model of monetary policy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 12(1), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernanke, B., & Blinder, A. (1992). The federal funds rate and the transmission of monetary shocks. American Economic Review, 84(4), 901–922.Google Scholar
  3. Blanchard, O., & Quah, D. (1989). The dynamic effects of agregate demand and supply disturbances. American Economic Review, 79(4), 655–673.Google Scholar
  4. Carilli, A., & Dempster, G. (2008). Is the Austrian business cycle still relevant? The Review of Austrian Economics, 21(4), 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiano, L., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C. (1999). Monetary policy shocks: what have we learned and to what end? In Handbook of Macroeconomics (Vol. 1A). Amsterdam; New York and Oxford: Elsevier Science, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Christiano, L., Eichenbaum, M., Evans, C. (2005) Nominal rigidities and the dynamic effects of a shock to monetary policy. Journal of Political Economy, 113(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochran, J. (2001). Capital based macroeconomics. Recent developments and extensions of Austrian capital theory. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 4(3), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrison, R. (2001). Time and money: the macroeconomics of capital structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Garrison, R. (2004). Overconsumption and forced saving in the Mises-Hayek theory of the business cycle. History of Political Economy, 36(2), 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon, R. (1990). The measurement of durable goods prices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., Krusell, P. (1997). Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. American Economic Review, 87(3), 342–363.Google Scholar
  12. Hayek, F.A. (1935). Prices and production. New York: Augustus M. Kelly.Google Scholar
  13. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 59(6), 1551–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keeler, J. (2001). Empirical evidence of the Austrian business cycle theory. The Review of Austrian Economics, 14(4), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kydland, F., & Prescott, E. (1982). Time to build and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50(6), 1345–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lastrapes, W.D., & Selgin, G. (1995). The liquidity effect: identifying short-run interest rate dynamics using long-run restrictions. Journal of Macroeconomics, 17(3), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lucas, R. (1972). Expectations and the neutrality of money. Journal of Economic Theory, 4, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mises, L. (1953). The Theory of Money and Credit. New Haven: Yale University Press. [1912].Google Scholar
  19. Mises, L. (2008). Human Action. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute. [1949].Google Scholar
  20. Mulligan, R. (2002). A Hayekian analysis of the term structure of production. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(2), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulligan, R. (2006). An empirical examination of Austrian business cycle theory. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 9(2), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prescott, E. (1986). Theory ahead of business cycle measurement. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 10(4), 9–22.Google Scholar
  23. Romer, C., & Romer, D. (2004). A new measure of monetary policy shocks: derivations and implications. American Economic Review, 94(4), 1055–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sims, C.A. (1980). Macroeconomics and Reality. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 48(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skousen, M. (2007). The Structure of Production. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Woodford, M. (2003). Interest and prices: foundations of a theory of monetary policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Young, A.T. (2005). Reallocating labor to initiate changes in capital structures: Hayek revisited. Economic Letters, 89(3), 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Young, A.T. (2012). The time structure of production in the US, 2002–2009. Review of Austrian Economics, 25(2), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUS
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUS

Personalised recommendations