Startseite Assessing the Role of Sentiment in the Propagation of Fiscal Stimulus
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Assessing the Role of Sentiment in the Propagation of Fiscal Stimulus

  • Bijie Jia , Hyeongwoo Kim ORCID logo und Shuwei Zhang EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 7. September 2021
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
Aus der Zeitschrift The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics Band 22 Heft 2

Abstract

This paper studies the dynamic effects of the fiscal policy shock on private activity using an array of vector autoregressive models for the post-war U.S. data. We are particularly interested in the role of consumer sentiment in the transmission of fiscal stimulus. Our major findings are as follows. Private spending fails to rise persistently in response to government spending shocks, while they exhibit persistent and significant increases when the sentiment shock occurs. Employing not only linear but also nonlinear state-dependent VAR model estimations, we show that the government spending shock generates consumer pessimism in all phases of business cycle resulting in subsequent decreases in private activity, which ultimately weakens the effectiveness of the fiscal policy. Our counterfactual simulation exercises confirm the important role of sentiment in propagating fiscal stimulus to private spending.

Keywords: government spending; sentiment channel; nonlinear VAR; counterfactual simulations; survey of professional forecasters
JEL Classification: E32; E62
Corresponding author: Shuwei Zhang, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, 203 Hepburn, 23 Romoda Dr., St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, 13617, USA, E-mail:

Acknowledgment

An earlier version of this paper was circulated under the title “Government Spending Shocks and Private Acitity: The Role of Sentiments”. Our thanks go to seminar/conference participants at Xi’an Jiaotong University, Keio University, Bank of Korea, KEA International Conference, and Southern Economic Association Meetings. Special thanks go to Masao Ogaki, Ippei Fujiwara, Randy Beard, and Henry Thompson for helpful comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection, or the U.S. Government.

Appendix
Table A1:

Unit root test results.

ADF t pv Lag
TGDP −2.099 0.245 2
PGDP −1.794 0.384 2
SENT (CS) −3.420 0.010 4
SENE (CSE) −3.575 0.007 0
SENC (CSC) −3.909 0.002 4
FC & I −0.090 0.249 4
TC & I −1.818 0.372 4
DEFN −2.774 0.062 4
SC & I −2.366 0.151 4
FGOV −1.833 0.365 4
TGOV −2.304 0.171 4

  1. We report the augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) test statistics (ADF t ) with an intercept along with their associated p-values (pv). The optimal number of lags was chosen by the general to specific rule with a maximum of 4 lags. The ADF test fails to reject the null of nonstationarity for all variables at the 5% significance level with exceptions of the index of consumer expectations (CSE) and the index of current economic conditions (CSC).

Table A2:

Stationarity of the VAR.

VAR Intercept Intercept and trend
FGOV-GDP-SENT 0.994 0.970
FGOV-PGDP-SENT 0.994 0.976
FC & I-GDP-SENE 0.993 0.953
FC & I-PGDP-SENE 0.993 0.950

  1. We report the modulus of the largest eigenvalue of the tri-variate VAR(4). The ordering of the VAR does not matter because eigenvalues are calculated from the reduced form VAR.

Figure A1: Some survey of consumers data. We obtained these time series data, the index of consumer Opinions about Government’s Economic Policy and the Expected change in Real income during the next Year, from University of Michigan’s survey of consumers. Shaded areas indicate NBER recession dates.
Figure A1:

Some survey of consumers data.

We obtained these time series data, the index of consumer Opinions about Government’s Economic Policy and the Expected change in Real income during the next Year, from University of Michigan’s survey of consumers. Shaded areas indicate NBER recession dates.

Figure A2: Modulus graphs of the eigenvalues of the VAR. We provide sample modulus graphs of the eigenvalues of the VAR. The first one corresponds to the model (GDP-SENE-FC&I) of Bachmann and Sims (2012), accompanied by the graph below when the VAR is demeaned and detrended. The modulus graphs in the second column are from the VAR with the private GDP. The red circle indicates the unit circle.
Figure A2:

Modulus graphs of the eigenvalues of the VAR.

We provide sample modulus graphs of the eigenvalues of the VAR. The first one corresponds to the model (GDP-SENE-FC&I) of Bachmann and Sims (2012), accompanied by the graph below when the VAR is demeaned and detrended. The modulus graphs in the second column are from the VAR with the private GDP. The red circle indicates the unit circle.

Figure A3: Bachmann and Sim’s (2012) model with alternative specifications x t = f c & i t , sent t , gdp t ′ ${\mathbf{x}}_{t}={\left[fc\& {i}_{t},\enspace {\text{sent}}_{t},{\text{gdp}}_{t}\right]}^{\prime }$ . The first figure replicates the nonlinear response function estimates from the VAR model in Bachmann and Sims (2012) using their code and the data, FC&I, SENE, and GDP from 1960:I to 2011:IV. The solid line represents the output response to the government spending shock during economic recessions, while the dashed line is the response during booms. Note that responses are qualitatively similar when the VAR includes both the intercept and time trend. We thank Eric Sims for generously sharing the code and the data that were used in Bachmann and Sims (2012).
Figure A3:

Bachmann and Sim’s (2012) model with alternative specifications x t = f c & i t , sent t , gdp t ′ .

The first figure replicates the nonlinear response function estimates from the VAR model in Bachmann and Sims (2012) using their code and the data, FC&I, SENE, and GDP from 1960:I to 2011:IV. The solid line represents the output response to the government spending shock during economic recessions, while the dashed line is the response during booms. Note that responses are qualitatively similar when the VAR includes both the intercept and time trend. We thank Eric Sims for generously sharing the code and the data that were used in Bachmann and Sims (2012).

References

Aiyagari, S. R., L. J. Christiano, and M. Eichenbaum. 1992. “The Output, Employment, and Interest Rate Effects of Government Consumption.” Journal of Monetary Economics 30: 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(92)90045-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Auerbach, A. J., and Y. Gorodnichenko. 2012. “Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal Policy.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 4 (2): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.4.2.1.Suche in Google Scholar

Bachmann, R., and E. R. Sims. 2012. “Confidence and the Transmission of Government Spending Shocks.” Journal of Monetary Economics 59: 235–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.02.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Barro, R. J., and C. J. Redlick. 2011. “Macroeconomic Effects from Government Purchases and Taxes.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (1): 51–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjq002.Suche in Google Scholar

Barsky, R. B., and E. R. Sims. 2012. “Information, Animal Spirits, and the Meaning of Innovations in Consumer Confidence.” The American Economic Review 102 (4): 1343–77. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1343.Suche in Google Scholar

Baxter, M., and R. G. King. 1993. “Fiscal Policy in General Equilibrium.” The American Economic Review 83 (3): 315–34.Suche in Google Scholar

Beaudry, P., and F. Portier. 2006. “Stock Prices, News, and Economic Fluctuations.” The American Economic Review 96 (4): 1293–307. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.4.1293.Suche in Google Scholar

Beaudry, P., and F. Portier. 2007. “When Can Changes in Expectations Cause Business Cycle Fluctuations in Neo-Classical Settings?” Journal of Economic Theory 135 (1): 458–77.10.1016/j.jet.2006.06.009Suche in Google Scholar

Bernanke, B. S., M. Gertler, and M. Watson. 1997. “Systematic Monetary Policy and the Effects of Oil Price Shocks.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 28 (1): 91–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534702.Suche in Google Scholar

Blanchard, O. 1993. “Consumption and the Recession of 1990–1991.” The American Economic Review 83 (2): 270–4.Suche in Google Scholar

Blanchard, O., and R. Perotti. 2002. “An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (4): 1329–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935043.Suche in Google Scholar

Burnside, C., M. Eichenbaum, and J. D. M. Fisher. 2004. “Fiscal Shocks and Their Consequences.” Journal of Economic Theory 115 (1): 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-0531(03)00252-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Cavallo, M. 2005. “Government Employment and the Dynamic Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks.” In Working Paper Series 2005–16. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.10.24148/wp2005-16Suche in Google Scholar

Christiano, L. J., M. Eichenbaum, and C. L. Evans 1999. “Monetary Policy Shocks: What Have We Learned and to what End?” In Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 1, edited by J. B. Taylor, and M. Woodford, 65–148. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/S1574-0048(99)01005-8Suche in Google Scholar

Christiano, L., M. Eichenbaum, and S. Rebelo. 2011. “When Is the Government Spending Multiplier Large?” Journal of Political Economy 119 (1): 78–121. https://doi.org/10.1086/659312.Suche in Google Scholar

Cochrane, J. H. 1994. “Shocks.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series On Public Policy 41 (1): 295–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2231(94)00024-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Corsetti, G., A. Meier, and G. J. Müller. 2012. “What Determines Government Spending Multipliers?” Economic Policy 27 (72): 521–65.10.1111/j.1468-0327.2012.00295.xSuche in Google Scholar

Devereux, M. B., A. C. Head, and B. J. Lapham. 1996. “Monopolistic Competition, Increasing Returns, and the Effects of Government Spending.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 28 (2): 233–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/2078025.Suche in Google Scholar

Edelberg, W., M. Eichenbaum, and J. D. Fisher. 1999. “Understanding the Effects of a Shock to Government Purchases.” Review of Economic Dynamics 2 (1): 166–206. https://doi.org/10.1006/redy.1998.0036.Suche in Google Scholar

Fatás, A., and I. Mihov. 2001. “The Effects of Fiscal Policy on Consumption and Employment: Theory and Evidence.” In CEPR Discussion Papers 2760. London: C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.Suche in Google Scholar

Fazzari, S. M., J. Morley, and I. Panovska. 2015. “State-dependent Effects of Fiscal Policy.” Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics 19 (3): 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2014-0022.Suche in Google Scholar

Forni, M., and L. Gambetti. 2016. “Government Spending Shocks in Open Economy VARs.” Journal of International Economics 99 (C): 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2015.11.010.Suche in Google Scholar

Galí, J., J. D. López-Salido, and J. Vallés. 2007. “Understanding the Effects of Government Spending on Consumption.” Journal of the European Economic Association 5 (1): 227–70. https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2007.5.1.227.Suche in Google Scholar

Hall, R. E. 1986. “The Role of Consumption in Economic Fluctuations.” In The American Business Cycle: Continuity and Change, NBER Chapters, 237–66. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Suche in Google Scholar

Hall, R. E. 1993. “Macro Theory and the Recession of 1990–1991.” The American Economic Review 83 (2): 275–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246.Suche in Google Scholar

Hall, R. E. 2009. “By How Much Does GDP Rise if the Government Buys More Output?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 40 (2): 183–249. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.0.0069.Suche in Google Scholar

Ilzetzki, E., E. G. Mendoza, and G. A. Vegh. 2013. “How Big (Small) Are Fiscal Multipliers?” Journal of Monetary Economics 60: 239–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.10.011.Suche in Google Scholar

Jia, B., and H. Kim. 2016. “Government Spending Shocks and Private Activity: The Role of Sentiment.” In MPRA Working Paper No. 71554, Munich.Suche in Google Scholar

Kilian, L., and L. T. Lewis. 2011. “Does the Fed Respond to Oil Price Shocks?” Economic Journal 121 (555): 1047–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02437.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Koop, G., M. H. Pesaran, and S. M. Potter. 1996. “Impulse Response Analysis in Nonlinear Multivariate Models.” Journal of Econometrics 74 (1): 119–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(95)01753-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Mittnik, S., and W. Semmler. 2012. “Regime Dependence of the Fiscal Multiplier.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83: 502–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.02.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Mountford, A., and H. Uhlig. 2009. “What Are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?” Journal of Applied Econometrics 24 (6): 960–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.1079.Suche in Google Scholar

Oh, H., and R. Reis. 2012. “Targeted Transfers and the Fiscal Response to the Great Recession.” Journal of Monetary Economics 59 (S): 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.10.025.Suche in Google Scholar

Owyang, M. T., V. A. Ramey, and S. Zubairy. 2013. “Are Government Spending Multipliers Greater during Periods of Slack? Evidence from 20th Century Historical Data.” In NBER Working Papers 18769. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.10.3386/w18769Suche in Google Scholar

Perotti, R. 2005. “Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries.” In Proceedings.10.2139/ssrn.637189Suche in Google Scholar

Perotti, R. 2008. “In Search of the Transmission Mechanism of Fiscal Policy.” In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2007, NBER Chapters, Vol. 22, 169–226. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.10.1086/ma.22.25554966Suche in Google Scholar

Perotti, R. 2011. “Expectations and Fiscal Policy: An Empirical Investigation.” In Manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar

Ramey, V. A. 2011a. “Can Government Purchases Stimulate the Economy?” Journal of Economic Literature 49 (3): 673–85. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.3.673.Suche in Google Scholar

Ramey, V. A. 2011b. “Identification Government Spending Shocks: It’s All in the Timing.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (1): 1–50.10.1093/qje/qjq008Suche in Google Scholar

Ramey, V. A. 2012. “Government Spending and Private Activity.” In Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis, NBER Chapters, 19–55. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.10.7208/chicago/9780226018584.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar

Ramey, V. A., and M. D. Shapiro. 1998. “Costly Capital Reallocation and the Effects of Government Spending.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series On Public Policy 48 (1): 145–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2231(98)00020-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Ramey, V. A., and S. Zubairy. 2014. “Government Spending Multipliers in Good Times and in Bad: Evidence from U.S. Historical Data.” In NBER Working Papers 20719. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.10.3386/w20719Suche in Google Scholar

Rotemberg, J. J., and M. Woodford. 1992. “Oligopolistic Pricing and the Effects of Aggregate Demand on Economic Activity.” Journal of Political Economy 100 (6): 1153–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/261857.Suche in Google Scholar

Sims, C. A., and T. Zha. 2006. “Does Monetary Policy Generate Recessions?” Macroeconomic Dynamics 10 (02): 231–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136510050605019x.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-09-15
Revised: 2021-04-20
Accepted: 2021-08-19
Published Online: 2021-09-07

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Advances
  3. Uncertainty, Financial Markets, and Monetary Policy over the Last Century
  4. Collateral Constraints, Wage Rigidity, and Jobless Recoveries
  5. Revisiting the Link between House Prices and Monetary Policy
  6. Front-Loading Agricultural Subsidies: Quantifying Public Savings
  7. Contributions
  8. Equilibrium Tax Rates under Ex-ante Heterogeneity and Income-dependent Voting
  9. Financial Reforms and Consumption Smoothing
  10. The Government in SNA-Compliant DSGE Models
  11. Accounting for the International Great Depression: Efficiency, Distortions and Factor Utilization during the Interwar Period
  12. Assessing the Role of Sentiment in the Propagation of Fiscal Stimulus
  13. Fiscal Decentralization and Fiscal Multiplier in China
  14. Effect of Feed-In Tariff with Deregulation on Directed Technical Change in the Energy Sector
  15. Pay-as-You-Go Social Security and Educational Subsidy in an Overlapping Generations Model with Endogenous Fertility and Endogenous Retirement
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2020-0198
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
government spending; sentiment channel; nonlinear VAR; counterfactual simulations; survey of professional forecasters

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Advances
  3. Uncertainty, Financial Markets, and Monetary Policy over the Last Century
  4. Collateral Constraints, Wage Rigidity, and Jobless Recoveries
  5. Revisiting the Link between House Prices and Monetary Policy
  6. Front-Loading Agricultural Subsidies: Quantifying Public Savings
  7. Contributions
  8. Equilibrium Tax Rates under Ex-ante Heterogeneity and Income-dependent Voting
  9. Financial Reforms and Consumption Smoothing
  10. The Government in SNA-Compliant DSGE Models
  11. Accounting for the International Great Depression: Efficiency, Distortions and Factor Utilization during the Interwar Period
  12. Assessing the Role of Sentiment in the Propagation of Fiscal Stimulus
  13. Fiscal Decentralization and Fiscal Multiplier in China
  14. Effect of Feed-In Tariff with Deregulation on Directed Technical Change in the Energy Sector
  15. Pay-as-You-Go Social Security and Educational Subsidy in an Overlapping Generations Model with Endogenous Fertility and Endogenous Retirement
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 27.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejm-2020-0198/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen