Estimating the Natural Rate of Unemployment for Inflation Models
Summary
The document asks how to estimate the natural unemployment rate in a model linking inflation, unemployment, and a trade deficit. It describes two approaches: estimate a simple regression of the change in inflation on unemployment, then calculate the rate where predicted inflation change is zero; or use a long-term unemployment average covering a complete business cycle. The first approach follows a cited introductory econometrics treatment and is illustrated with a regression on the provided UK data, yielding an estimate of about 5.5%. The second approach is offered as a practical alternative based on business-cycle dates.
These are simplified methods for a macroeconomic input, rather than complete trading strategies. The regression omits the trade balance and other dynamics in the more elaborate model, so its estimate may depend on the sample and specification. A business-cycle average is also sensitive to how cycles and the averaging period are identified. The document gives no out-of-sample tests or evidence that either estimate improves trading decisions.
Key ideas
- Regressing inflation changes on unemployment provides a simple way to estimate the unemployment rate associated with stable inflation.
- The implied natural rate is the unemployment level at which the fitted inflation change is zero.
- A long-term unemployment average over a complete business cycle is presented as an alternative estimate.
- The illustrated regression produces an estimate of about 5.5% from the supplied data.
- The simple approaches do not fully account for the trade deficit and other features of the cited model.
Tags
Full text
# Trading with Inflation, Unemployment, Trade Deficit Information
# Trading with Inflation, Unemployment, Trade Deficit Information
I am trying to create a model for inflation for trading purposes. In his book The Market: Practice and Policy S. Nickell presents a model that relates unemployment, inflation and trade deficit. His final formula is
$$ [ \alpha_1 + \delta_1 \alpha_{12}]u + \alpha_2 \Delta^2 p + \alpha_{12} \delta_2 td = [\alpha_1 + \delta_1 \alpha_{12} ] \hat{u} $$
After he fits this model to data, he finds the coefficients as,
$$ 0.091 \log u + 0.05 u + 1.07 \Delta^2 p + 1.25 td = 0.091 \log \hat{u} + 0.054 \hat{u} - 1.27 \Delta u $$
where $\Delta^2 p$ the rate of change of the price level (ie inflation), $u$ unemployment rate, $td$ trade deficit as proportion of potential output, $\hat{u}$ is natural rate of unemployment. The full derivation can be found at the link below
Nickell
I am trying to fit his formula to the data for UK, but cannot figure out how to get $\hat{u}$. Nickell seems to indicate this comes from a seperate calculation, I guess a first-pass on data would calculate $\hat{u}$, then with this new column in hand, I could fit all of the variables shown above. How to compute that first pass? Nickell says $\hat{u}$ can be defined "as that unemployment rate which is consistent with constant inflation and balanced trade" i.e. $\Delta^2p = 0$ and $td=0$. I am not sure what to do with this information: if I set $\Delta^2p = 0$, $td=0$ in the first formula above, I have
$$ [ \alpha_1 + \delta_1 \alpha_{12}]u = [\alpha_1 + \delta_1 \alpha_{12} ] \hat{u} $$
which make no sense. What should my approach be for this computation? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Data for UK is below.
Data
## Answer by BBSysDyn (score 0, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/27723
From Wooldridge's Introductory Econometrics, 4th edition, pg. 390,
$$ \Delta inf_t = \beta_0 + \beta_1 unem_t + e_t$$
Once we know the coefficients, natural rate can be computed as
$$ \mu_0 = \beta_0 / (-\beta_1) $$
I worked out the code below,
```
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('p.raw',sep='\s*',index_col=0)
df['dinf'] = df.inf.diff()
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf
results = smf.ols('dinf ~ unem', data=df).fit()
print results.summary()
print 'natural unemployment', results.params.Intercept / -results.params.unem
```
gives
```
5.463
```
meaning a natural rate of unemployment of about %5.5 - this is a reasonable number.
Data
```
year unem inf
1948 3.8 8.1
1949 5.9 -1.2
1950 5.3 1.3
1951 3.3 7.9
1952 3 1.9
1953 2.9 .8
1954 5.5 .7
1955 4.4 -.4
1956 4.1 1.5
1957 4.3 3.3
1958 6.8 2.8
1959 5.5 .7
1960 5.5 1.7
1961 6.7 1
1962 5.5 1
1963 5.7 1.3
1964 5.2 1.3
1965 4.5 1.6
1966 3.8 2.9
1967 3.8 3.1
1968 3.6 4.2
1969 3.5 5.5
1970 4.9 5.7
1971 5.9 4.4
1972 5.6 3.2
1973 4.9 6.2
1974 5.6 11
1975 8.5 9.1
1976 7.7 5.8
1977 7.1 6.5
1978 6.1 7.6
1979 5.8 11.3
1980 7.1 13.5
1981 7.6 10.3
1982 9.7 6.2
1983 9.6 3.2
1984 7.5 4.3
1985 7.2 3.6
1986 7 1.9
1987 6.2 3.6
1988 5.5 4.1
1989 5.3 4.8
1990 5.6 5.4
1991 6.8 4.2
1992 7.5 3
1993 6.9 3
1994 6.1 2.6
1995 5.6 2.8
1996 5.4 3
1997 4.9 2.3
1998 4.5 1.6
1999 4.2 2.2
2000 4 3.4
2001 4.8 2.8
2002 5.8 1.6
2003 6 2.3
```
## Answer by Yugmorf (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/27595
I'm ot sure if it's the answer you're looking for but one commonly used method in practice is to simply take a long term average of the unemployment rate. The long term in this context means a period which covers exactly a full business cycle (either peak to peak or trough to trough).
FYI. US business cycle dates can be found here (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). A google search will return similar for the UK.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.