Authors

Abstract

In this paper, following Maćkowiak, Moench and Wiederholt (2009), the reaction of sectoral price indexes to aggregate and idiosyncratic shocks has been evaluated using Bayesian Dynamic Factor Model. The separation of the reaction of prices to these two types of shocks has been done in order to identify the pricing model that is more compatible with Iranian economy. In case of existence of any significant difference in speeds and sizes of price reaction with respect to these shocks, we can conclude that some of the conventional price setting models such as Calvo could not be able to explain the differences. Therefore, for the purpose of explaining the price setting behavior in Iran, alternative pricing models should be evaluated. The results of this study clearly show that there is a significant difference between the reaction of price indexes to aggregate and sectoral shocks. Based on the results, rational inattention model of Mackowiak and Wiederholt (2009a) is more consistent with the stylized facts of Iran’s economy in comparison with the conventional pricing models.

Keywords

Boivin, J. Giannoni, M. P. and Mihov, I (2009), “Sticky Prices and Monetary Policy: Evidence from Disaggregated US Data”, American Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 1, PP. 350–384.
Calvo, G. (1983), “Staggered Prices in a Utility-Maximizing Framework”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol.12, PP. 383–398.
Carter, C. K. and Kohn, R (1994), “On Gibbs Sampling for State Space Models”, Biometrika, Vol. 81, PP. 541–553.
Carvalho, C. (2006), “Heterogeneity in Price Stickiness and the Real Effects of Monetary Shocks”, Frontiers in Macroeconomics, Vol .6, No. 3, PP 1-56.
Carvalho, C. and Jae, J. W (2011), “Sectoral Price Facts in a Sticky-Price Model”, FRB of New York Staff Report, Vol. 495.
Chib, S. and Greenberg, E (1994), “Bayes Inference in Regression Models with ARMA (p; q) Errors”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 64, PP. 183–206.
Kaufmann, D., and Lein, S. M (2013), “Sticky Prices or Rational Inattention–What Can We Learn from Sectoral Price Data?”, European Economic Review, Vol. 64, PP. 384-394.
Kim, C. J. and Nelson, C. R (1999), “State-Space Models with Regime Switching: Classical and Gibbs-Sampling Appoaches with Applications”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology press, PP.1-295.
Korenok, O. and Swanson, N. R (2007), “How Sticky is Sticky Enough? A Distributional and Impulse Response Analysis of New Keynesian DSGE Models”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 39, No. 6, PP. 1481-1508.
Laforte, J. P. (2007), “Pricing Models: a Bayesian DSGE Approach for the US Economy”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 39, PP. 127-154.
Maćkowiak, B., and Wiederholt, M (2009), “Optimal Sticky Prices under Rational Inattention”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 3, PP. 769-803.
Maćkowiak, B., Moench, E., and Wiederholt, M (2009), “Sectoral Price Data and Models of Price Setting”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 56, PP. S78-S99.
Mankiw, N. G. and Reis, R (2002), “Sticky Information versus Sticky Prices: a Proposal to Replace the New Keynesian Phillips Curve”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117, No. 4, PP. 1295-1328.
Paustian, M. and Hagen, J (2012), “How Relevant are Nominal Contracting Schemes for Monetary Policy?”, Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 34, No. 3, PP. 723-740.
Rotemberg, J. (1982), “Sticky Prices in the United States”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 90, No. 6, PP. 1187-1211.
Smets, F. and Wouters, R (2005), “Comparing Shocks and Frictions in US and Euro Area Business Cycles: a Bayesian DSGE APProach”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 20, No. 2, PP.161-183.
Taylor, J. (1980), “Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, PP. 1-24.