TY - JOUR
T1 - Was the Great Depression a low-level equilibrium?
AU - Dagsvik, John
AU - Jovanovic, Boyan
N1 - Funding Information:
C~rres~o~e~ce to: Prof. Boyan Jovanovic, Department of Economics, New York University, New York, NY looO3, USA. *We thank the National Science Foundation and the C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics at New York University for technical and financial help. Some of the work was done while Dagsvik visited the C.V. Starr Center in October of 1987. The model was estimated by Uif Uttersrud of the Central Bureau of Statistics in Norway, and we are very much in his debt. We thank Ray Atje for capable research assistance, and members of the Coordination Failures group for commenting on an earlier version of this paper at the NBER Summer Institute in 1988.
PY - 1994/12
Y1 - 1994/12
N2 - If the Great Depression indeed was a bad equilibrium, then there was another, better equilibrium that the economy might have been in, but wasn't. This is the multiple equilibrium explanation. But another explanation is that equilibrium was unique, and that there were especially bad real shocks that caused output and employment to fall so much. The data tentatively support the second story - the Depression can not be blamed on a massive coordination failure. This conclusion hinges, however, on the assumption that the money supply did not act as an equilibrium-selection device. But since in the U.S. at least, money is not the best leading indicator, there are more natural variables that could have played this role, and we find this assumption reasonable. If this is correct, our results offer little, if any, support to the view that the Depression was the result of a coordination failure.
AB - If the Great Depression indeed was a bad equilibrium, then there was another, better equilibrium that the economy might have been in, but wasn't. This is the multiple equilibrium explanation. But another explanation is that equilibrium was unique, and that there were especially bad real shocks that caused output and employment to fall so much. The data tentatively support the second story - the Depression can not be blamed on a massive coordination failure. This conclusion hinges, however, on the assumption that the money supply did not act as an equilibrium-selection device. But since in the U.S. at least, money is not the best leading indicator, there are more natural variables that could have played this role, and we find this assumption reasonable. If this is correct, our results offer little, if any, support to the view that the Depression was the result of a coordination failure.
KW - Business cycles
KW - Coordination failure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038174614&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038174614&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0014-2921(94)90047-7
DO - 10.1016/0014-2921(94)90047-7
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0038174614
SN - 0014-2921
VL - 38
SP - 1711
EP - 1729
JO - European Economic Review
JF - European Economic Review
IS - 9
ER -