English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Recent work on the effects of permanent technology shocks argue that the basic RBC model cannot account for a negative correlation between hours worked and labour productivity. In this Paper, I show that this conjecture is not necessarily correct. In the basic RBC model, I find that hours worked fall and labour productivity rises after a positive permanent technology shock once one allows for the possibility that the process for the permanent technology shock is persistent in growth rates. A more serious limitation of the RBC model is its inability to generate a persistent rise in hours worked after a positive permanent technology shock along with a rise in labour productivity that are in line with what the data suggests.

The Effects of Permanent Technology Shocks on Labor Productivity and Hours in the RBC Model