A Problem of Log-linearization

This forum is closed. You can read the posts but cannot write. We have migrated the forum to a new location where you will have to reset your password.
Forum rules
This forum is closed. You can read the posts but cannot write. We have migrated the forum to a new location (https://forum.dynare.org) where you will have to reset your password.

A Problem of Log-linearization

Postby lssp » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:44 am

Dear friends,

I'm a new dynare user, and I have encountered a problem of log-linearization in a paper of DSGE model.

This problem is displayed in the attachment. Would you please have a look? I'd really appreciate that.

Thank you so much!
Attachments
A Problem of Log-linearization.doc
(113 KiB) Downloaded 75 times
lssp
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: A Problem of Log-linearization

Postby jpfeifer » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:44 pm

This is a typical case of an equation that can not be expressed in percentage deviations from steady state because the steady state is 0. In that case, people just use a linearization instead of a log-linearization. Because the equation in the document is already linear, you can enter it in the way stated in the document.
------------
Johannes Pfeifer
University of Cologne
https://sites.google.com/site/pfeiferecon/
jpfeifer
 
Posts: 6940
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

Re: A Problem of Log-linearization

Postby lssp » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:17 am

Dear Professor,

Thanks for the reply. That's very helpful for me.

I have do the linearization according to you advice in the attachment. Is that right?

and I have finished a code in log-linearization form. It can give the result, but the result is not reasonable.

Could you please tell me what the probable problem may be ?

Sorry to bother you.

Thank you so much!
Attachments
log-linearization.mod
(8.9 KiB) Downloaded 53 times
Log-linearization.doc
(72.5 KiB) Downloaded 91 times
lssp
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: A Problem of Log-linearization

Postby jpfeifer » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:24 am

Almost. To get from the first to the second line, you expanded the fraction by n^{H,h}/n^{H,h} and defined
(n^{H,h}_{t+1}-n^{H,h})/n^{H,h} as the hatted variable. But that means that a n^{H,h} as a prefactor in the second part is missing.
------------
Johannes Pfeifer
University of Cologne
https://sites.google.com/site/pfeiferecon/
jpfeifer
 
Posts: 6940
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

Re: A Problem of Log-linearization

Postby lssp » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:22 pm

jpfeifer wrote:Almost. To get from the first to the second line, you expanded the fraction by n^{H,h}/n^{H,h} and defined
(n^{H,h}_{t+1}-n^{H,h})/n^{H,h} as the hatted variable. But that means that a n^{H,h} as a prefactor in the second part is missing.


Dear professor,

I'm sorry that I do not quite understand the last sentence in your reply.What do you mean by prefactor is missing?

and would you please tell me which one in the attachment is the right form?

Thank you so much!
Attachments
Log-linearization.doc
(96.5 KiB) Downloaded 60 times
lssp
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: A Problem of Log-linearization

Postby jpfeifer » Tue May 13, 2014 10:02 am

You can do both, but they have different interpretations. In the first case, \hat n is defined as n_t - \bar n, i.e. is the linear deviation from steady state. In the second case, \hat n is defined as (n_t - \bar n)/(\bar n) and is the percentage deviation from steady state. Assuming you log-linearized the rest of the model and \hat n was defined to be percentage deviations in the other equations, only the second one is correct.
------------
Johannes Pfeifer
University of Cologne
https://sites.google.com/site/pfeiferecon/
jpfeifer
 
Posts: 6940
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany


Return to Dynare help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests