Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Behavioral Expectations in New Keynesian DSGE Models: Evidence from India's COVID-19 Recovery and Vaccination Program

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Behavioral expectations beat rational models for India's COVID recovery

desk verdict A readable but underidentified calibration exercise: the behavioral model fits India's post-COVID means only by construction, and the vaccination-persistence claim rests on three parameters fit to two moments. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17165 v3 pith:IRHB7JZU submitted 2024-11-26 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Arpan Chakraborty , Siddhartha Chattopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords behavioralexpectationsNewKeynesianDSGEoutputgapinflationCOVID-19vaccinationMahalanobisdistanceIndia
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a New Keynesian DSGE model with behavioral expectations—where agents switch between simple forecasting rules based on past success—matches India's post-pandemic output gap and inflation moments better than the same model with rational expectations. Using quarterly Indian data filtered by both Hodrick-Prescott and Kalman methods, the authors model COVID-19 as a ten-quarter negative demand shock and vaccination as a six-quarter positive supply shock, then calibrate the shock sizes and persistence by minimizing Mahalanobis distance. The calibrated behavioral model reproduces the actual post-COVID means of output gap and inflation, while the rational expectations model produces means far from the data. The paper reads the calibrated persistence parameters as evidence that the vaccination-triggered positive supply shock was more persistent than the COVID-induced demand shock, quantitatively extending an earlier static Keynesian analysis of the same episode.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-equation behavioral New Keynesian DSGE model in the style of De Grauwe: an aggregate demand equation, a Phillips curve, and a Taylor rule, plus a behavioral expectation formation mechanism in which agents choose between fundamentalist and extrapolative forecasts using discrete-choice probabilities based on discounted mean squared forecast errors. The pandemic and vaccination enter as deterministic autoregressive shocks, ϵt = ρε^(t−1) ϵ1 for ten quarters and ηt = ρη^(t−1) η1 for six quarters, with ϵ1 taken from the observed output-gap drop. Calibration searches a grid over η1, ρε, and ρη and selects the triple minimizing the Mahalanobis distance between simulated and actual two-dimensional moment vectors (mean output gap, mean inflation), a scale-invariant distance that accounts for covariance between simulated and actual moments.

What would settle it

Re-run the same Mahalanobis calibration on India's post-COVID output gap and inflation with an extended shock specification—for example, adding a separate negative supply shock during lockdown quarters, fiscal transfer shocks, or allowing the demand shock to last longer than ten quarters—and check whether the calibrated vaccination persistence ρη still exceeds the demand persistence ρε. If the ranking reverses or the behavioral model loses its fit, the paper's central claim about vaccination efficacy and behavioral expectations would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that replacing rational expectations with behavioral expectations in a small New Keynesian DSGE model lets the model match the first moments of India's post-pandemic output gap and inflation rate, whereas rational expectations fails even on the mean. After fixing the initial COVID demand shock to the observed Q1 2020 output gap dip, the grid-search calibration over the initial supply shock and the two persistence parameters yields (η1, ρε, ρη) = (0.64, 0.8, 0.9) for the HP-filter-based output gap and (0.57, 0.8, 0.95) for the Kalman-filter-based output gap. In both cases the behavioral model's simulated mean output gap and mean inflation nearly equal the actual post-COVID averages, with smaller Mahalanobis distance than the rational expectations model. The calibrated positive supply shock persistence ρη exceeding the negative demand shock persistence ρε is presented as evidence that India's vaccination program generated a sustained favorable supply-side impulse that outlasted the pandemic's demand drag.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the pandemic is fully captured by a deterministic ten-quarter negative demand shock and vaccination by a six-quarter positive supply shock, with the entire Q1 2020 output-gap drop assigned to the demand shock; if other shocks, supply-side COVID effects, or policy responses contributed to the post-COVID quarterly averages, the calibrated persistence comparison is not identified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If behavioral expectations are the right description, policy analysis for India should not rely on rational-expectations models that miss even the post-crisis mean of output and inflation.
  • The calibrated persistence ranking implies that vaccination programs can be quantified as measurable positive supply shocks within a standard structural model, not just as public-health events.
  • The model provides a dynamic complement to the static Keynesian analysis of the same episode, allowing shock persistence and magnitudes to be separated empirically.
  • The behavioral model's closer fit on higher-order moments (variance, skewness, kurtosis, and normality tests) suggests it can serve as a simulation tool for distributions, not just averages.
  • Successful replication on the full 20-year Indian sample supports the claim that behavioral expectations, not only extreme-shock episodes, better capture Indian business-cycle moments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One editorial extension is that the persistence comparison ρη > ρε may conflate vaccination with other post-2021 recovery forces—fiscal transfers, pent-up demand, or looser policy—since the model assigns all positive supply-side recovery to the vaccination shock.
  • Another extension is that the same behavioral DSGE calibration strategy could be applied to other emerging economies with observable output-gap dips and vaccination timelines, giving a cross-country measure of vaccination-driven supply persistence.
  • A testable implication not pursued in the paper is that the behavioral model should also match the sign and timing of forecast disagreement during the recovery; survey-based expectation dispersion data could be used to check the switching proportions estimated by the model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a behavioral New Keynesian DSGE model, following De Grauwe and Ji, to the Indian economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. It models the pandemic as a deterministic negative aggregate demand shock and the vaccination program as a positive aggregate supply shock, calibrating the initial supply shock magnitude and both persistence parameters by minimizing a Mahalanobis distance between simulated and actual post-COVID means of the output gap and inflation rate. The authors report that the behavioral-expectations model matches the first moments better than a rational-expectations model and that the calibrated persistence of the vaccination supply shock exceeds that of the COVID demand shock, which they interpret as evidence of the vaccination program's efficacy.

Significance. If the identification and comparison were valid, the paper would offer a useful quantitative application of behavioral DSGE modeling to an emerging economy and a novel quantification of vaccination effects within a microfounded framework. The authors are transparent about data sources, provide both HP and Kalman filter output gap estimates, and include a structural break test. However, the central empirical claims rest on an underidentified calibration and an uncontrolled comparison between behavioral and rational expectations, so the paper's headline findings are not currently established. The distributional comparison in Section 4.1 also shows substantial variance mismatches that are not addressed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (4)-(5) and Tables II-III] The calibration is underidentified: three parameters (eta_1, rho_epsilon, rho_eta) are chosen to match only two moment targets (mean output gap and mean inflation). A continuum of parameter triples can match the two means equally well, and the coarse grid search (increments of 0.01 for eta_1 and 0.05 for the persistence parameters) does not resolve this non-uniqueness. Consequently, the reported ordering rho_eta > rho_epsilon is not an identified empirical finding, and the conclusion about vaccination efficacy stated in the abstract and Section 5 is not supported by the calibration.
  2. [Section 4, Mahalanobis distance definition] The Mahalanobis distance is defined using Sigma = cov(sdata, ssim), which is not a standard covariance matrix for the moment vector. A proper Mahalanobis distance requires the covariance matrix of the moment estimator (e.g., the sampling covariance of sdata - ssim), not the cross-covariance between the data and simulated vectors. As written, the criterion is not justified and its properties are unclear, which affects the validity of the calibration result.
  3. [Section 4, Tables II and III, rational expectations row] The behavioral-vs-rational comparison is not controlled. The rational expectation model is assigned arbitrary boundary values (rho_epsilon = 0.0, rho_eta = 1.0, eta_1 = 1.0) rather than being calibrated by the same distance-minimization procedure. The behavioral model is optimized over a grid, so the lower Mahalanobis distance for the behavioral model is expected by construction and does not demonstrate that behavioral expectations are empirically superior.
  4. [Section 4.1, Tables IV and V] The simulated output gap variance (0.0609 for the HP-based model and 0.0500 for the Kalman-based model) is more than an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding actual variances (0.0028 and 0.0017, respectively). The paper claims the simulated data 'reasonably approximate the empirical distribution' based on Jarque-Bera p-values, but those p-values only test normality within each series and do not compare the simulated and actual distributions. The variance mismatch directly contradicts the claim of matching distributional characteristics and is not discussed.
  5. [Section 4, Eqs. (4)-(5) and shock structure] The identification of the vaccination effect rests on the assumption that the entire pandemic is captured by a deterministic negative demand shock lasting exactly 10 quarters and a positive supply shock lasting exactly 6 quarters, with epsilon_1 set equal to the Q1 2020 output gap dip. If other shocks, supply-side effects of COVID-19, policy responses, or alternative shock durations contributed to the 16 post-COVID quarterly means, the calibrated persistence comparison is not identified. The paper provides no robustness analysis with respect to these assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Mahalanobis distance formula] The notation for Sigma is undefined beyond 'cov(sdata, ssim)'; the paper should specify the dimension and the exact estimator used, and ideally provide a reference for this version of the Mahalanobis distance.
  2. [Section 6.3, Tables VII and VIII] The text says 'Tables III and IV present the Likelihood Ratio test results' but the relevant tables in the appendix are numbered VII and VIII; the cross-references are incorrect.
  3. [Appendix, references] The reference to 'Goyel and Arora (2016)' appears twice and should be 'Goyal and Arora (2016)'.
  4. [Section 3, parameter table] The paper states that gamma and rho are taken from De Grauwe and Ji (2019) for the US; a sensitivity analysis on these parameters for India would strengthen the results, though this is not central to the main critique.
  5. [Section 4, simulation details] The paper reports running 88.2 million simulations but does not state the random seed or the exact method for generating the behavioral expectation draws; providing reproducible code or a precise algorithm description would be helpful.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central first-moment 'match' and the vaccination-persistence conclusion reduce to the calibration objective: three shock parameters are fitted to two post-COVID means, and the resulting closeness is then reported as a successful prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, grid-search paragraph (Equations 4-5) and Tables II-III]
    "Our primary objective is to determine the initial magnitude of the positive supply shock ( η1) precipitated by vaccination implementation, and the persistence parameters of negative aggregate demand ( ρϵ) and positive aggregate supply ( ρη) shocks to achieve correspondence with post-COVID actual average values of the output gap and inflation rate. To do this, we conduct a grid search over (η1), (ρϵ), and ( ρη) ... Finally, by minimizing the Mahalanobis distance, and by calibrating the grid of persistence parameters ρϵ, ρη, and the initial positive supply shock η1, we obtain our results."

    The two 'correspondence' moments are exactly the moments later reported as successful matches (Tables II-III: simulated output gap -0.0035 vs actual -0.0046; simulated inflation 1.2518 vs actual 1.2580). The grid search minimizes the Mahalanobis distance d = sqrt((ssim-sdata)Σ^-1(ssim-sdata)^T) between the simulated and actual means, so the reported closeness of simulated moments to actual moments is the optimization objective, not an out-of-sample prediction. In addition, the initial demand shock ϵ1 is set equal to the observed Q1 2020 HP/Kalman output gap dip, anchoring the shock path to the same data used for the moment match.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Tables II-III and comparison text]
    "In contrast, the rational expectation model assumes no persistence for the COVID shock ( ρϵ = 0.0) and a persistence of 1.0 for the vaccination shock, with an initial supply shock value of 1.0. ... This discrepancy is reflected in the Mahalanobis distance, which is smaller for the behavioral model (1.3794) compared to the rational model (1.4142), suggesting that the behavioral model better matches the empirical data."

    The behavioral model's (η1, ρϵ, ρη) are calibrated to minimize the distance to the actual post-COVID means, while the rational model's shock parameters are assigned without any estimation or calibration. Comparing a fitted model to an unfitted benchmark and reporting the fitted model's smaller distance as evidence that behavioral expectations are superior is a fitted-input-called-prediction comparison; the outcome is forced by the asymmetry of the exercise rather than by the expectation-formation mechanism.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 and Section 5 (Conclusion)]
    "Moreover, our findings elucidate that vaccination programs generated significant positive supply shocks, counterbalancing the prolonged negative demand shock precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis also reveals that the positive supply shocks’ persistence parameter exceeds that of the negative demand shocks, indicating the exceptional efficacy of India’s vaccination strategy."

    This headline conclusion is a restatement of the calibrated grid values: (ρη, ρε) = (0.9, 0.8) for the HP-filter model and (0.95, 0.8) for the Kalman-filter model. Since ρϵ and ρη are free parameters selected on the same grid to minimize distance to only two moment targets, the model is underidentified (three free shock parameters, two moments), and the ordering ρη > ρϵ is not an identified empirical finding. The differing assumed shock durations (10 quarters for demand, 6 for supply) further make the persistence parameters non-comparable. Presenting this calibrated ordering as evidence of vaccination efficacy treats a fitted parameter as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central first-moment result is substantially circular: the behavioral model's shock parameters (η1, ρϵ, ρη) are calibrated to the exact post-COVID mean output gap and mean inflation that are then reported as successful matches, and the behavioral-versus-rational comparison is asymmetric because the rational model's shock parameters are assigned rather than fitted. The vaccination-persistence conclusion is likewise a direct restatement of fitted grid values, and the underidentification (two moments, three parameters) means the ordering is not identified. However, the behavioral expectation mechanism itself is imported from external work by De Grauwe and Ji, and the appendix's full-sample Jarque-Bera comparison is not calibrated to those specific moments, so there is some independent content. The score is 6: the main first-moment 'prediction' and the persistence ordering reduce by construction to the calibration exercise, while the behavioral framework and higher-moment robustness prevent a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central calibration rests on literature parameter values, an ad hoc shock decomposition, and a Mahalanobis criterion whose covariance definition is ambiguous. The persistence values that support the headline vaccination conclusion are fitted parameters. The behavioral expectation mechanism itself is imported from De Grauwe and Ji, so the distinctively behavioral part of the model is not invented here, but its India-specific application is entirely calibrated.

free parameters (7)
  • Initial positive supply shock eta_1 = 0.64 (HP model), 0.57 (Kalman model)
    Chosen by grid search to minimize Mahalanobis distance to the post-COVID means of output gap and inflation. This is the vaccination shock magnitude.
  • Persistence of negative demand shock rho_epsilon = 0.80
    Fitted over a grid with step 0.05; it controls how long the COVID demand shock decays and directly enters the reported conclusion.
  • Persistence of positive supply shock rho_eta = 0.90 (HP model), 0.95 (Kalman model)
    Fitted over a grid with step 0.05; the claim that vaccination persistence exceeds demand persistence restates this value.
  • Learning intensity gamma = 2
    Taken from De Grauwe and Ji (2019), not calibrated for India; it controls how quickly agents switch forecasting rules and affects all simulated moments.
  • Memory parameter rho = 0.5
    Taken from De Grauwe and Ji (2019), not calibrated for India; it sets how fast past forecast errors are forgotten.
  • Demand shock duration = 10 quarters
    Chosen by hand in footnote 12 to match the perceived duration of COVID in India; changing it changes every simulated moment.
  • Supply shock duration = 6 quarters
    Chosen by hand in footnote 13 for Q1 2021 to Q2 2022; changing it changes the calibrated values.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Three-equation New Keynesian structure (AD, Phillips curve, Taylor rule) with Calvo pricing and monopolistic competition
    Invoked in Section 3, Equations (1)-(3); the behavioral model is built directly on this structure.
  • domain assumption Fundamentalist and extrapolator expectation switching with discrete choice
    Section 3.2 applies De Grauwe's (2012) behavioral mechanism; the utility functions and logistic switching are assumed, not estimated for India.
  • domain assumption Literature parameter vector in Table I applies to India
    The authors state that parameters such as kappa=0.065, beta=0.98, sigma=1.5, theta=0.75, c1=1.2, c2=0.5, c3=0.8 are taken from existing studies without re-estimation.
  • ad hoc to paper COVID is a negative AD shock and vaccination is a positive AS shock with deterministic AR decay
    Section 4, Equations (4)-(5); no structural derivation of the signs, durations, or decay functional form is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Mahalanobis distance with Sigma = cov(sdata, ssim) is a valid calibration criterion
    Section 4; cov(sdata, ssim) is not a standard dispersion matrix for the distance between two mean vectors, and the criterion is not derived.
  • domain assumption HP and Kalman filtered output gaps measure the true output gap
    Appendix 6.2; the Q1 2020 value of the filtered gap sets the initial demand shock size, so filter misspecification directly changes the calibration.
  • ad hoc to paper Structural break at Q1 2020 is known
    Section 3.3 and Appendix 6.3; the break date is chosen after visual inspection, so the LR test p-values do not account for searching over candidate break dates.
invented entities (1)
  • Vaccination-induced positive aggregate supply shock eta_t
    purpose: Represents the economic effect of India's vaccination program as a positive supply-side impulse in the DSGE model
    The shock size and persistence are calibrated to the output gap and inflation means that they are then used to explain; no vaccination coverage or other outside data identifies the shock.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Behavioral Expectations in New Keynesian DSGE Models: Evidence from India's COVID-19 Recovery and Vaccination Program." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IRHB7JZU

@misc{pith2026241117165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Behavioral Expectations in New Keynesian DSGE Models: Evidence from India's COVID-19 Recovery and Vaccination Program},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IRHB7JZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17165}
}
read the original abstract

This paper extends the New Keynesian Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) framework by incorporating behavioral expectations to analyze the moments of India's output gap and inflation rate, with a particular focus on the impacts of COVID-19 and vaccination programs. While DSGE models traditionally rely on rational expectations, we demonstrate that behavioral expectations more accurately capture the distributional characteristics of India's output gap and inflation rates data. Utilizing both Hodrick-Prescott and Kalman filters, we estimate the output gap and establish congruence with the moments of the simulated output gap. Concurrently, employing the initial negative demand shock values of the output gap, we calibrate the persistence parameters of negative aggregate demand (AD) and positive aggregate supply (AS) shocks, alongside the initial magnitude of the positive supply shock to achieve correspondence with post-COVID actual average values of the output gap and inflation rate. To ensure model precision, we implement Mahalanobis distance minimization for model calibration. Our findings elucidate that vaccination programs generated significant positive supply shocks, counterbalancing the prolonged negative demand shock precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the analysis reveals that the positive supply shocks' persistence parameter exceeds that of the negative demand shocks, indicating the exceptional efficacy of India's vaccination strategy. Furthermore, this research advances the scholarly contributions of Dasgupta and Rajeev (2023) by furnishing a quantitative DSGE framework that complements their static simple Keynesian analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quarterly Output Gap of India: Comparison of HP and Kalman Filter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quarterly Inflation rate of India using CPI data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ali, J., and Khan, W. (2024), Sociodemographic and institutional factors as determinants of access to food among rural households during the COVID- 19 pandemic in India, Indian Growth and Development Review , 17(3), 405-421. https://doi.org/10.1108/IGDR-07-2023-0088

    work page doi:10.1108/igdr-07-2023-0088 2024

  2. [2]

    (2010), Optimal price indices for target- ing inflation under incomplete markets, IMF Working Papers , 10(200), 1

    Anand, R., and Prasad, E. (2010), Optimal price indices for target- ing inflation under incomplete markets, IMF Working Papers , 10(200), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781455205301.001

    work page doi:10.5089/9781455205301.001 2010

  3. [3]

    Arora, R., Arora, N., and Bhattacharjee, S. (2024), Quantification of sectoral im- pact of COVID-19 on the Indian economy: An application of the economy-wide accounting framework, Indian Growth and Development Review , 17(3), 314-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/IGDR-12-2022-0138

    work page doi:10.1108/igdr-12-2022-0138 2024

  4. [4]

    (2020), A monetary business cycle model for India, Economic Inquiry, 58(3), 1362–1386

    Banerjee, S., Basu, P., and Ghate, C. (2020), A monetary business cycle model for India, Economic Inquiry, 58(3), 1362–1386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12855

    work page doi:10.1111/ecin.12855 2020

  5. [5]

    (2000), Solution of finite-horizon multivariate linear ra- tional expectations models and sparse linear systems, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24(3), 325–346

    Binder, M., and Pesaran, H. (2000), Solution of finite-horizon multivariate linear ra- tional expectations models and sparse linear systems, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24(3), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1889(99)00008-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0165-1889(99)00008-1 2000

  6. [6]

    S., and Margaritov, E

    Blattner, T. S., and Margaritov, E. (2010), Towards a robust monetary policy rule for the euro area, SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1617252

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.1617252 2010

  7. [7]

    A., & Hommes, C

    Brock, W. A., & Hommes, C. H. (1997), A rational route to randomness, Economet- rica, 65:1059–1095

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    A., & Hommes, C

    Brock, W. A., & Hommes, C. H. (1998), Heterogeneous beliefs and routes to chaos in a simple asset pricing model, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 22:1235–1274

    work page 1998

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Calvo, G. A. (1983), Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework, Journal of Monetary Economics, 12:383–398

    1983

  2. [10]

    (2024), Optimal fis- cal debt management strategy during financial crises: A behavioral New Keynesian DSGE approach for the US, CDE Working Paper No

    Chakraborty, A., Chattopadhyay, S., Das, M., and Sahu, S. (2024), Optimal fis- cal debt management strategy during financial crises: A behavioral New Keynesian DSGE approach for the US, CDE Working Paper No. 352 , Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics. IS...

    2024

  3. [11]

    (2013), Liquidity trap and the conditional policy commitment: An analysis under adaptive learning, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance, 2(1), 1–32

    Chattopadhyay, S. (2013), Liquidity trap and the conditional policy commitment: An analysis under adaptive learning, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance, 2(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277978713482201

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    (2019), Capital misallocation and its implications for In- dia’s potential GDP: Evidence from India KLEMS, Indian Economic Review , 54(2)

    Das, R., and Nath, S. (2019), Capital misallocation and its implications for In- dia’s potential GDP: Evidence from India KLEMS, Indian Economic Review , 54(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-019-00055-4

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    (2020), The paradox of a supply- constrained Keynesian equilibrium, Economic and Political Weekly , 55(22)

    Dasgupta, D., and Rajeev, M. (2020), The paradox of a supply- constrained Keynesian equilibrium, Economic and Political Weekly , 55(22). https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/22/commentary/paradox-supply-constrained- keynesian-equilibrium.html

    2020

  6. [14]

    (2023), Covidonomics or the Curious Case of a Supply Constrained Keynesian Equilibrium, In: Raychaudhuri, A., Ghose, A

    Dasgupta, D., and Rajeev, M. (2023), Covidonomics or the Curious Case of a Supply Constrained Keynesian Equilibrium, In: Raychaudhuri, A., Ghose, A. (eds), Managing Pandemic and Correcting Development Fundamentals , India Studies in Business and Economics, Springer, Singapore

    2023

  7. [15]

    (2012), Lectures on behavioral macroeconomics , Princeton Univer- sity Press

    De Grauwe, P. (2012), Lectures on behavioral macroeconomics , Princeton Univer- sity Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691147390/lectures-on- behavioral-macroeconomics

    2012

  8. [16]

    (2019), Behavioural Macroeconomics: Theory and Policy , Oxford University Press, UK

    De Grauwe, P., and Ji, Y. (2019), Behavioural Macroeconomics: Theory and Policy , Oxford University Press, UK

    2019

  9. [17]

    (2020), Structural reforms, animal spirits, and monetary policies, European Economic Review , 124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103395

    De Grauwe, P., and Ji, Y. (2020), Structural reforms, animal spirits, and monetary policies, European Economic Review , 124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103395

    2020

  10. [18]

    (2012), An estimated dsge model of the indian economy, In: C

    Gabriel, V., Levine, P., Pearlman, J., & Yang, B. (2012), An estimated dsge model of the indian economy, In: C. Ghate (Ed.), The Oxford Hand- book of the Indian Economy , 1st ed., 835–890. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734580.013.0029

    2012

  11. [19]

    (2008),Monetary policy, inflation, and the business cycle: An introduction to the new Keynesian framework , Princeton University Press

    Gal ´ ı, J. (2008),Monetary policy, inflation, and the business cycle: An introduction to the new Keynesian framework , Princeton University Press

    2008

  12. [20]

    (2016), Estimating the Indian natural inter- est rate: A semi-structural approach, Economic Modelling , 58, 141–153

    Goyal, A., and Arora, S. (2016), Estimating the Indian natural inter- est rate: A semi-structural approach, Economic Modelling , 58, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.023 14

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    (2024), Resilience of the group lending model to a COVID-19 induced shock: Evidence from an Indian microfinance fund, Indian Growth and Development Review , 17(3), 378-404

    Kadiyala, P., and Ascioglu, A. (2024), Resilience of the group lending model to a COVID-19 induced shock: Evidence from an Indian microfinance fund, Indian Growth and Development Review , 17(3), 378-404. https://doi.org/10.1108/IGDR-08- 2023-0123

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    (2023), A basic two-sector new keynesian dsge model of the indian economy, Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields , 14(1), 36

    Kumar, A. (2023), A basic two-sector new keynesian dsge model of the indian economy, Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields , 14(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v14.1(27).04

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    (2010), An estimated model with macrofinancial linkages for India, IMF Working Paper , 10(21), 1

    Peiris, S., Saxegaard, M., and Anand, R. (2010), An estimated model with macrofinancial linkages for India, IMF Working Paper , 10(21), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451962321.001

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    (2019), Inflation dynamics and mone- tary policy in India: A New Keynesian Phillips Curve perspective, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance , 8(2), 144–179

    Salunkhe, B., and Patnaik, A. (2019), Inflation dynamics and mone- tary policy in India: A New Keynesian Phillips Curve perspective, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance , 8(2), 144–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277978719861186

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    (2020), Understanding the short-run relationship between stock mar- ket and growth in emerging economies, Journal of Quantitative Economics , 18(2)

    Sarkar, A. (2020), Understanding the short-run relationship between stock mar- ket and growth in emerging economies, Journal of Quantitative Economics , 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-019-00183-x

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    (2022), Understanding the COVID economic crisis: A short-run general equilibrium framework, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance , 11(2), 217–245

    Sarkar, A. (2022), Understanding the COVID economic crisis: A short-run general equilibrium framework, South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance , 11(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/22779787221097787

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    A., and Garg, B

    Shah, S. A., and Garg, B. (2023), Testing policy effectiveness during COVID-19: An NK-DSGE analysis, Journal of Asian Economics , 84, 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101577

    2023

  20. [28]

    (2022), A dissection of Indian growth using a DSGE filter, Journal of Asian Economics , 80, 101480

    Sharma, S., and Behera, H. (2022), A dissection of Indian growth using a DSGE filter, Journal of Asian Economics , 80, 101480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101480

    2022

  21. [29]

    1 0 1 1 # , and ωt ∼ N(0, W) represents the process noise with covariance matrix: W =

    Taylor, J. B. (1993), Discretion versus policy rules in practice, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy , 39, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167- 2231(93)90009-L 15 6 Appendix 6.1 Robustness using a Three Equation Model In this sub-section, we check the Jarq...

    1993 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.