Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.

We analyze set identification in Bayesian vector autoregressions (VARs). Because set identification can be challenging, we propose to include micro data on heterogeneous entities to sharpen inference. First, we provide conditions when imposing a simple ranking of impulse-responses sharpens inference in bivariate and trivariate VARs. Importantly, we show that this set reduction also applies to variables not subject to ranking restrictions. Second, we develop two types of inference to address recent criticism: (1) an efficient fully Bayesian algorithm based on an agnostic prior that directly samples from the admissible set and (2) a prior-robust Bayesian algorithm to sample the posterior bounds of the identified set. Third, we apply our methodology to U.S. data to identify productivity news and defense spending shocks. We find that under both algorithms, the bounds of the identified sets shrink substantially under heterogeneity restrictions relative to standard sign restrictions.

How much have the dynamics of U.S. time series changed over the last century? Has the evolution of the Federal Reserve as an institution over the 100 years altered the transmission of monetary policy shocks? To tackle these questions, we build a multivariate time series model with time-varying parameters and stochastic volatility that features measurement errors in observables. We find substantial changes in the structure of the economy. There is also large variation in the impact of monetary policy shocks, but the majority of this variation is driven by changes in exogenous volatility.

We propose to add ranking restrictions on impulse‐responses to sign restrictions to narrow the identified set in vector autoregressions (VARs). Ranking restrictions come from micro data on heterogeneous industries in VARs, bounds on elasticities, or restrictions on dynamics. Using both a fully Bayesian conditional uniform prior and prior‐robust inference, we show that these restrictions help to identify productivity news shocks in the data. In the prior‐robust paradigm, ranking restrictions, but not sign restrictions alone, imply that news shocks raise output temporarily, but significantly. This holds both in an application with rankings in the form of heterogeneity restrictions and in another applications with slope restrictions as rankings. Ranking restrictions also narrow bounds on variance decompositions. For example, the bound of the contribution of news shocks to the forecast error variance of output narrows by about 30 pp at the one‐year horizon. While misspecification can be a concern with added restrictions, they are consistent with the data in our applications.

How much have the dynamics of U.S. time series and in particular the transmission of innovations to monetary policy instruments changed over the last century? The answers to these questions that this paper gives are "a lot" and "probably less than you think," respectively. We use vector autoregressions with time-varying parameters and stochastic volatility to tackle these questions. In our analysis we use variables that both influenced monetary policy and in turn were influenced by monetary policy itself, including bond market data (the difference between long-term and short-term nominal interest rates) and the growth rate of money.