Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Increases in oil prices have been held responsible for recessions, periods of excessive inflation, reduced productivity and lower economic growth. In this paper, we review the arguments supporting such views. First, we highlight some of the conceptual difficulties in assigning a central role to oil price shocks in explaining macroeconomic fluctuations, and we trace how the arguments of proponents of the oil view have evolved in response to these difficulties. Second, we challenge the notion that at least the major oil price movements can be viewed as exogenous with respect to the US macroeconomy. We examine critically the evidence that has led many economists to ascribe a central role to exogenous political events in modeling the oil market, and we provide arguments in favor of ‘reverse causality’ from macroeconomic variables to oil prices. Third, although none of the more recent oil price shocks has been associated with stagflation in the US economy, a major reason for the continued popularity of the oil shock hypothesis has been the perception that only oil price shocks are able to explain the US stagflation of the 1970s. We show that this is not the case.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Robert Barsky
Lutz Kilian
The Journal of Economic Perspectives
National Bureau of Economic Research
Centre for Economic Policy Research
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Barsky et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ef8e5aa1655e5fb2314c5 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330042632708
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: