Since the 1960s, the Phillips curve has survived various significant changes (Kuhnian paradigm shifts) in macroeconomic theory and generated endless controversies. This dissertation revisits several important, representative papers throughout the curve's four historical, formative periods: Phillips' foundational paper in 1958, the wage determination literature in the 1960s, the expectations-augmented Phillips curve in the 1970s, and the latest New Keynesian iteration. The purpose is to provide a retrospective evaluation of the curve's empirical evidence. In each period, the preeminent role of the theoretical considerations over statistical learning from the data is first explored. To further appraise the trustworthiness of empirical evidence, a few key empirical models are then selected and evaluated for their statistical adequacy, which refers to the validity of the probabilistic assumptions comprising the statistical models. The evaluation results, using the historical (vintage) data in the first three periods and the modern data in the final one, show that nearly all of the models in the appraisal are misspecified - at least one probabilistic assumption is not valid. The statistically adequate models produced from the respecification with the same data suggest new understandings of the main variables' behaviors. The dissertations' findings from the representative papers cast doubt on the traditional narrative of the Phillips curve, which the representative papers play a crucial role in establishing. / Doctor of Philosophy / The empirical regularity of the Phillips curve, which captures the inverse relationship between the inflation and unemployment rates, has been widely debated in academic economic research and between policymakers in the last 60 years. To shed light on the debate, this dissertation examines a selected list of influential, representative studies from the Phillips curves' empirical history through its four formative periods. The examinations of these papers are conducted as a blend between a discussion on the methodology of econometrics (the primary quantitative method in economics), the role of theory vs. statistical learning from the observed data, and evaluations of the validity of the probabilistic assumptions assumed behind the empirical models. The main contention is that any departure of probabilistic assumptions produces unreliable statistical inference, rendering the empirical analysis untrustworthy. The evaluation results show that nearly all of the models in the appraisal are untrustworthy - at least one assumption is not valid. Then, an attempt to produce improved empirical models is made to produce new understandings. Overall, the dissertation's findings cast doubt on the traditional narrative of the Phillips curve, which the representative papers play a crucial role in establishing.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:VTETD/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/103230 |
| Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Creators | Do, Hoang-Phuong |
| Contributors | Economics, Spanos, Aris, Miller, Melinda, Tsang, Kwok Ping, Luo, Shaowen |
| Publisher | Virginia Tech |
| Source Sets | Virginia Tech Theses and Dissertation |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | ETD, application/pdf |
| Rights | In Copyright, http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds