Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

DSGE model-based estimation of the New Keynesian Phillips curve

By Frank Schorfheide


This paper surveys estimates of New Keynesian Phillips curve (NKPC) parameters that have been obtained by fitting fully specified dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models to U.S. data. We examine various sources of identification in the context of a simple analytical model. DSGE model-based NKPC estimates tend to be fragile and sensitive to the model specification, in particular if marginal costs are treated as an unobserved variable. Estimates of the NKPC slope lie between 0 and 4. If the observations span the labor share, which is in most instances the model-implied measure of marginal costs, then the slope estimates fall into a much narrower range of 0.005 to 0.135. No consensus has emerged with respect to the importance of lagged inflation in the Phillips curve.Inflation (Finance) ; Phillips curve

OAI identifier: oai:RePEc:fip:fedreq:y:2008:i:fall:p:397-433:n:v.94no.4

Suggested articles


  1. (1989). Time-to-Build andAggregate Fluctuations: Some New
  2. (2004). Tobin’s ImperfectAsset Substitution in
  3. Sticky-price Models and the Natural Rate Hypothesis.”
  4. (2007). Technology Shocks and Monetary Policy: Revisiting the Fed’s Performance.”
  5. (2004). Some Evidence on the Importance of Sticky Prices.”
  6. (1073). Habit Formation and the Persistence of Monetary Shocks.”
  7. (1983). Staggered Prices in a Utility-Maximizing Framework.”
  8. (2008). The FinancialAccelerator in an Estimated New Keynesian Model.”
  9. (1999). Monetary Policy Shocks: What have We Learned and to What End?”
  10. (2005). Nominal Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a Shock to Monetary Policy.”
  11. (2004). Priors from General Equilibrium Models for VARS.”
  12. (2006). Forming Priors for DSGE Models (and How itAffects theAssessment of Nominal Rigidities).” Federal Reserve Bank ofAtlanta Working Paper
  13. (2008). Forming Priors for DSGE Models (and How itAffects theAssessment of Nominal Rigidities).”
  14. (1999). State Dependent Pricing and the General Equilibrium
  15. (2000). Optimal Monetary Policy with Staggered Wage and Price Contracts.”
  16. (2004). Technology Shocks andAggregate Fluctuations: How Well Does the Real Business Cycle Model Fit Postwar U.S.
  17. (2006). Unemployment Fluctuations with Staggered Nash Wage Bargaining.” Working Paper 12498.
  18. (2006). A Phillips Curve with an Ss Foundation.” Working Paper 11971.
  19. (2004). Money’s Role in the Monetary Business Cycle.”
  20. (2007). Changes in the Federal Reserve’s Inflation Target: Causes and Consequences.”
  21. (2008). The Time-Varying Volatility of
  22. (2008). State-Dependent or Time-Dependent Pricing: Does it Matter for Recent U.S.
  23. (2007). The (Ir)relevance of Real Wage Rigidity in the New Keynesian Model with Search Frictions.”
  24. (2005). Quantifying the Uncertainty about a Forward-Looking, New Keynesian Pricing Model.”
  25. (2007). VAR-Based Estimation of Euler Equations with an Application to New Keynesian Pricing.”
  26. (1994). Toward a Modern Macroeconomic Model Usable for PolicyAnalysis.”
  27. Monetary Policy Under Uncertainty in Micro-Founded Macroeconometric Models.”
  28. (2004). Testing for Indeterminacy: AnApplication to U.S.
  29. (2006). A Bayesian Look at New Open Economy Macroeconomics.”
  30. (2007). Does Inflation Increase after a Monetary Policy Tightening?Answers Based on an Estimated
  31. (2005). Comparing New Keynesian Models of the Business Cycle:A BayesianApproach.”
  32. (1997). An Optimization-Based Econometric Model for the Evaluation of Monetary Policy.”
  33. (2007). Modelling Inflation Dynamics:A Critical Review of Recent Research.”
  34. (2006). Econometric Policy Evaluation and Inverse Control.”
  35. (1989). Two Models of Measurements and the Investment Accelerator.”
  36. (2002). Prices and Unit Labor Costs:A New Test of Price Stickiness.”
  37. (2005). Do Expected Future Marginal Costs Drive Inflation Dynamics?”
  38. (2003). An Estimated Stochastic Dynamic General Equilibrium Model for the
  39. (2005). Comparing Shocks and Frictions in U.S.
  40. (2007). Shocks and Frictions in U.S.
  41. (1993). Discretion Versus Policy Rules

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.