Dynare Working Papers Series

http://www.dynare.org/wp/

Sticky Information Models in Dynare

Fabio Verona
Maik H. Wolters

Working Paper no. 11

Initial revision: September 2012

This revision: April 2013

142, rue du Chevaleret — 75013 Paris — France

http://www.cepremap.ens.fr
 Sticky Information Models in Dynare∗

Fabio Verona† Maik H. Wolters‡

March 26, 2013

Abstract

Macroeconomic models with sticky information include an infinite number of lagged expectations.
Several authors have developed specialized solutions algorithms to solve these models under rational ex-
pectations. We demonstrate that it is also possible to implement this class of models in Dynare – a
widely used software package for solving dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models. Using
the Dynare macro language one can easily construct and change the required large number of lagged
expectation terms. We assess the accuracy of simulations run with different truncation points for the
lagged expectations terms and find that the solution is reasonably precise even for moderate truncation
points.

Keywords: sticky information, Dynare, macro-processor, lagged expectations

∗ We thank two anonymous referees, the editor (Hans Amman), Stéphane Adjemian, Efrem Castelnuovo, Assia Ezzeroug,

Michel Juillard, Alexander Meyer-Gohde and Jouko Vilmunen for very helpful discussions and comments. The views expressed
in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bank of Finland. All remaining errors are
the authors’ sole responsibility.
† Bank of Finland, Monetary Policy and Research Department, and University of Porto, CEF.U P (e-mail:

[email protected]).
‡ University of Kiel and Kiel Institute for the World Economy (email: [email protected]).

1
1 Introduction
This paper illustrates how Dynare1 can be used to solve and simulate rational expectations models with lagged
expectations. In particular, this work might be of interest to economists interested in implementing sticky
information models à la Mankiw and Reis (2002) in Dynare. Sticky information models have been developed
as an alternative to the widely used Calvo sticky price framework. Agents update their information set
infrequently and therefore adjust their decisions with a delay to the occurrence of shocks. These models have
a number of interesting implications. First, they can generate hump-shaped and delayed inflation reactions
in response to monetary policy shocks. Second, in contrast to the standard New Keynesian model announced
and credible disinflations require a decrease in real economic activity. Finally, the change in inflation is
positively correlated with the level of economic activity.
While these models are appealing from an economic point of view, they introduce a number of technical
difficulties. Sticky information models include infinite sums of lagged expectations terms. Mankiw and
Reis (2007) have developed an algorithm that uses a method of undetermined coefficients and exploits the
recursiveness of the model’s dynamics to efficiently solve this class of models. Wang and Wen (2006) transform
variables with lagged expectations into their forecast errors and can thus keep the model’s state space at its
minimum. The most general algorithm has been developed in Meyer-Gohde (2010). His solution method
combines a state-space and an infinite-MA representations with a simple system of linear equations. The
method is more general and faster than the original algorithm by Mankiw and Reis (2007). Most closely
related to our approach is the strategy pursued in Trabandt (2007). He approximates the infinite state space
with a finite state space by truncating the number of lagged expectations. He starts with a minimal number of
lagged expectations terms and adds sequentially more terms until the coefficients of the recursive equilibrium
law of motion change by less than a prespecified tolerance.
We use Dynare, which is probably the most widely used software package for applied work with DSGE models,
to solve sticky information models. We approximate the infinite state space with a finite version by truncating
the lagged expectation terms. We show that the solution to the models by Mankiw and Reis (2002) and Reis
(2009) is reasonably precise for a moderate number of lagged expectation terms. We demonstrate how the
Dynare macro language can be used to quickly adjust the truncation point. Dynare requires more time to
solve the model than the more specialized algorithms mentioned above. While for example the algorithm in
Mankiw and Reis (2007) takes less than a second on a standard computer, the implementation in Dynare
takes about 20 seconds due to the increased state space. However, 20 seconds is still a feasible amount of
time for simulating models as well as for analysing different policy scenarios or computing optimal policy.
Tools to conduct such analysis are already contained in the Dynare software package and can be used directly.
Another advantage of using Dynare is that models can be simulated with higher order approximations, which
is not possible with the specialized solution algorithms discussed above. Regarding the estimation of sticky
information models, for maximum likelihood estimation and Bayesian estimation – where a model needs to
1 See www.dynare.org and Adjemian et al. (2011).

2
be solved many times to simulate the posterior distribution – researchers will need to use a more specialized
software package, such as the one developed by Meyer-Gohde (2010). For estimation, it is necessary to
compute the ergodic variance to initialize the Kalman filter. This is actually one of the most time consuming
parts using Dynare, and it makes estimation of sticky information models with Dynare unfeasible.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the sticky information Phillips curve
from the Reis (2009) sticky information general equilibrium model. Section 3 shows how to implement this
equation in Dynare. In section 4 we analyse the accuracy and computational times of simulations computed
with Dynare. Section 5 concludes. Appendix A provides a short description of the model equations of Reis
(2009). Appendix B lists the Dynare and Matlab files that can be used to reproduce the results in this paper.
These files are provided in the SImodels.zip file available on the authors’ and Ricardo Reis’ websites.

2 The sticky information Phillips curve

The general equilibrium model by Reis (2009) is an extension of the Mankiw and Reis (2002) partial equi-
librium sticky information model. Here we briefly introduce the sticky information Phillips curve. A version
of this equation is included in both models and features an infinite number of lagged expectation terms.2
The sticky information Phillips curve is given by:
∞  
X i β (wt − pt ) + (1 − β) yt − at β
pt = λ (1 − λ) Et−i pt + − vt . (1)
i=0
β + ν (1 − β) (ν − 1) [β + ν (1 − β)]

The price level (pt ) depends on past expectations of its current value, real marginal costs and desired markups.
Marginal costs increase in real wages paid to workers (wt − pt ) and in the amount of goods produced (yt )
because of decreasing returns to scale (β < 1), while an increase in aggregate productivity (at ) decreases
marginal costs. The desired markups fall with the elasticity of substitution across goods varieties (vt ), which
varies randomly over time (ν is the steady-state elasticity of substitution for goods). The key parameter in
the sticky information Phillips curve is λ. While all firms can adjust prices in each period, not all firms have
up-to-date information about the state of the economy. In particular, in each period only a fraction λ of firms
update their information set and make new plans, while the remaining firms continue to set prices based on
old plans and outdated information. This model thus predicts that information about economic conditions
disseminates slowly through the economy.
The other key equations of Reis (2009) are an IS curve and a wage equation with similar lagged expectation
terms, a standard production function and a Taylor rule. These equations link inflation, output, wages, the
2 While it is possible to implement models in Dynare in nonlinear form and let Dynare derive a first, second or higher order

approximations to the solution, we stick here to the linearized sticky information Phillips curve as it is difficult in this particular
model to eliminate firm-specific variables from the profit maximization first-order conditions without linearizing some terms
beforehand.

3
interest rate and hours worked to exogenous shocks to aggregate productivity growth, aggregate demand,
goods markups, labor markups and monetary policy. Each of these shocks follows an AR (1) process with
independent and normally distributed innovations.

3 Sticky information in Dynare

In this section we show how to implement the sticky information Phillips curve in Dynare. The method
also applies to the infinite number of lagged expectations terms in the IS curve (A.3) and the wage equation
(A.4). To implement the sticky information Phillips curve in Dynare it is necessary to define additional state
variables. It is not possible to replace the infinite sum in equation (1) by recursive equations as it is the case
in the standard Calvo price and wage Phillips curves. Here, we need instead to take into account information
sets, i.e. the economic state, at different points in time and create additional state variables – the lagged
expectation terms – that are not predetermined, but must be solved for in equilibrium.

3.1 Lagged expectations

 T
Consider a generic variable zt , and let zt|t−τ = Et−τ [zt ] τ =1 , T → +∞, denote the sequence of lagged
expectations of zt . Since Dynare version 4.1, the implementation of variables with lagged expectations can
be easily done with an expectation operator using the following notation: EXPECTATION(period of the
information set)(period that expectations are formed for). For example, if we want to implement zt|t−3 =
Et−3 [zt ], we just have to write EXPECTATION(−3)(z).
Therefore, let zt be the term in curly brackets in equation (1):

β (wt − pt ) + (1 − β) yt − at β
zt = pt + − vt . (2)
β + ν (1 − β) (ν − 1) [β + ν (1 − β)]

Using lagged expectation terms, we can rewrite the sticky information Phillips curve (1) as:
h i
2 3 ∞
pt = λ zt + (1 − λ) zt|t−1 + (1 − λ) zt|t−2 + (1 − λ) zt|t−3 + · · · + (1 − λ) zt|t−∞ (3)

or, in Dynare syntax using the EXPECTATION operator, as:

p = λ [z + (1 − λ) EXP ECT AT ION (−1) (z) +

i
2 ∞
+ (1 − λ) EXP ECT AT ION (−2) (z) + · · · + (1 − λ) EXP ECT AT ION (−∞) (z) . (4)

Note that equations (3) and (4) contain an infinite number of lagged expectations. Therefore, implementing
these in Dynare entails a truncation of the number of lagged expectations included in the model, that is,

4
T < ∞ so that zt|t−∞ will be replaced by zt|t−T . As we will show in section 4, the choice of the truncation
point T has noticeable effects on the the computational time required to solve the model.
The procedure outlined above can be used for other models with a small number of lagged expectation terms
(e.g. the labor hoarding model of Burnside and Rebelo, 1993), or models that use lagged expectation to get
the same timing as in a recursively identified VAR to run a minimum distance estimation (e.g. Christiano
et al., 2005 or Cwik et al., 2011). As explained in the following section, for models with a large number of
lagged expectation terms, the Dynare macro language can be used to easily define the required additional
expression.

3.2 Macro-processor

The truncation point T determines the number of variables and equations of the model. Whenever one
changes the value of T , one needs to manually add or delete variables in the variable declaration block of
the .mod file and also needs to modify the Phillips curve equation in the model block of the .mod file. Using
instead the Dynare macro-processor allows to do these tasks automatically. The procedure is as follows.
First, at the beginning of the .mod file, we add the following line of code:
@#define lags = [ 1 : T ]
where 1 ≤ T < ∞ represents the value of the truncation point. This generates a vector lags = [1, 2, ..., T ]
that is used afterwards as a loop-counter. The only part of the code that might need to be adjusted is the
truncation point T .3
Second, in the model block, we explicitly write equation (2):
z = p + (beta*(w-p) + (1-beta)*y - a)/(beta+nu*(1-beta))
- beta*nuu/((nu-1)*(beta+nu*(1-beta)));

Finally, in the model block, we write the Phillips curve as:

p = lambda*( z +
@#for lag in lags
+(1-lambda)^(@{lag})*EXPECTATION(@{-lag})(z)
@#endfor );
This generates the Phillips curve (4).
3 A few papers using sticky information models include Andres et al. (2005), Paustian and Pytlarczyk (2006), Wang and

Wen (2006), Keen (2007), Trabandt (2007), Meyer-Gohde (2010) and Verona (2011). They consider a truncation point ranging
from 3 (Andres et al., 2005) to 252 (Meyer-Gohde, 2010).

5
4 Results
This section compares the accuracy of simulations and computational times in Dynare with the original
results of Mankiw and Reis (2002) and Reis (2009).4
Table 1 shows the computational time that Dynare needs to solve the models for three different truncation
points (T = 16, 24 and 32). As shown in Panel A, solving the Mankiw and Reis (2002) partial equilibrium
model takes only a few seconds . More interesting are the results, shown in Panel B, for the Reis (2009)
general equilibrium model. While it takes less than 1 second to solve the general equilibrium model using
the Mankiw and Reis algorithm, Dynare needs 14 seconds to run the code when 16 lagged expectations are
considered. By defining additional lagged expectations terms many equations are added in comparison to
the original code. For example, for the version with a truncation point of T = 16 the model implemented
in Dynare consists of 571 equations. The total computation time increases a lot more when improving the
accuracy by increasing T from 16 to 32 as the number of equations increases to 1795. Accordingly, it takes
about 19 minutes to run a version of the model with a truncation point of T = 32.
However, these numbers are exaggerated because they measure the time for computing the solution as well
as various additional statistics, rather then the solution only. In fact, Dynare spends most of the time in
solving Lyapunov equations to compute the ergodic variances needed for the variance decomposition. In
case of T = 32, the amount of time spent on the variance decomposition accounts for 91% of the total
computation time. Leaving out the computation of the variance decomposition reduces the computation
time from 19 minutes to 100 seconds for a truncation point of T = 32, as reported in the last column of
table 1. The computation times using Dynare are much higher than using the original solution algorithm of
Mankiw and Reis. However, they are still in a range that they are sufficiently short to conduct simulations or
the computation of optimal policy. Only estimation of sticky information models is unfeasible with Dynare
as the computation of the ergodic variance is needed to initialize the Kalman filter. Even a computation time
of 14 seconds (when T = 16) will be too long as the model needs to be solved many times to compute the
posterior distribution of parameters when using Bayesian estimation.
We then evaluate the accuracy of simulations conducted with sticky information models by reporting differ-
ences of impulse responses between the solution method proposed here and the original solution method by
Mankiw and Reis (2002). Before turning to an exact quantification of the accuracy, we start with a visual
assessment. Figure 1 shows the impulse responses (Reis’s codes: crossed lines; Dynare: circled lines) of four
variables (inflation, nominal interest rate, hours worked and output gap) to one-standard-deviation impulses
to the five shocks (productivity, demand, goods markups, labor markups and monetary policy) in the Reis
(2009) general equilibrium model.5 The impulse responses are reported for two different truncation values,
T = 16 (top panel) and 24 (bottom panel) quarters. With only two exceptions, when T = 16 the impulse
4 The original codes of Mankiw and Reis (2002) and Reis (2009) are publicly available from Reis’ website:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rr2572/
5 The parameters are set at the maximum-likelihood estimates in Reis (2009, table 2).

6
responses are mostly overlapped. The exceptions are the impulse responses of inflation and the nominal
interest rate to a productivity shock. However, extending the truncation point T from 16 to 24 quarters
results in a better fit and differences between impulse responses computed with Dynare and the Mankiw and
Reis algorithm cannot visually be detected anymore.
To give an exact quantification of the accuracy of simulations, we follow the approach proposed by Golub
and van Loan (1989) and applied by Meyer-Gohde (2010) to sticky information models. We compute the
Euclidean norm of differences in impulse response functions computed with Dynare and the Mankiw and
Reis algorithm. Using the Euclidean norm one can quantify small differences in impulse response functions
that are difficult to visualize in the previous graphs. Figure 2 shows the relative error of the Dynare solution
for different truncation points. The Euclidean norm is computed for the impulse responses for a horizon of
up to 32 periods. We report Euclidean norms jointly for inflation, the output gap, hours worked and the
nominal interest rate. Euclidean norms of impulse response functions for single shocks and for all shocks
together (labelled ’total’) are reported. The vertical axis shows the Euclidean norm on a log scale, while the
horizontal axis indicates the three different truncation points (T = 16, 24 and 32).
The results show strong differences in the accuracy of simulating responses to different shocks. For the
monetary and the goods markups shocks, a truncation of T = 16 is sufficient and a larger number of lagged
expectation terms does not reduce the approximation error much further. The relative error for the labor
markups is larger for T = 16 and can be reduced significantly when increasing the number of lags to T = 32.
Interestingly, the approximation errors for the demand and especially the productivity shock are much larger.
This is because these shocks are very persistent (the autocorrelation parameters of the shock processes are
close to one), so it takes many periods to return to the steady state and the approximation error accumulate
accordingly. Increasing the number of lagged expectation terms leads to a significant reduction of the relative
error. The approximation with T = 32 is 20 times more accurate than for T = 16 for the productivity shock
and still about 5 times more accurate for the demand shock.6
To judge whether the approximation error is statistically and economically significant, we exploit that the
general equilibrium model by Reis (2009) has been empirically estimated using Bayesian estimation, so that
there is uncertainty regarding the parameter values. We focus on the impulse responses of inflation to
a productivity and demand shock as these are the ones where the Dynare implementation produces the
largest deviations from the original impulse responses in Reis (2009). Using the original code by Ricardo
Reis, we take 10000 independent draws from the posterior distribution of the model parameters, simulate
the model and compute the posterior distribution of the impulse response functions. By comparing these
statistics to the impulse response simulated using Dynare we can judge whether the approximation error of
the solution algorithm is of less, similar or more importance for simulations and policy analysis than the
empirical uncertainty about parameter estimates.7
6 We have to point out that Meyer-Gohde (2010)’s method is much more accurate than the method described in this paper.
7 Another measure of the accuracy of numerical solutions of rational expectation models is the Euler equation error as
proposed by Judd (1992). Using this approach one can measure the size of the approximation errors in terms of consumption.

7
Figures 3 and 4 show the mean, median and 90% confidence band of the posterior distribution of impulse
responses. The red and blue line show the impulse responses computed with Dynare using truncation points
of T = 24 and T = 32. One can see that the Dynare impulse responses are close to the mean and median
estimates of the Mankiw and Reis algorithm for both truncation points, and lie clearly within the 90%
confidence band. Therefore, parameter uncertainty plays a much larger role for the accuracy of simulations
than whether one uses the solution algorithm by Mankiw and Reis or the Dynare solution algorithm. In fact,
the point estimates of the impulse responses for both solution algorithms are very close together and are far
away from the boundaries of the confidence band. Thus, for the accuracy and economic interpretation of
policy simulations, it hardly matters whether Dynare or the original codes are used.

5 Concluding remarks
In this paper we have illustrated how Dynare can be used to solve and simulate rational expectations models
with a large number of lagged expectations terms. The results suggest that moderate truncation points of
the lagged expectations are sufficient to obtain an accurate solution for sticky information models and a clear
picture of these models’ dynamics. The deviations of simulated paths of variables using Dynare compared to
the usage of the original codes is negligible in comparison to uncertainty about simulation results stemming
from parameter uncertainty. The size of the approximation error depends on both the truncation point and
the shock that hits the economy. Solving the model with Dynare takes much longer than with the original
code – the definition of lagged expectations increases the number of state variables considerably – but 20
seconds is a sufficiently low time amount to run simulations with Dynare.
In spite of requiring longer computational times, we think it is interesting to implement sticky information
models in Dynare since it will only take a few moments to adapt the .mod code and use it for various further
analysis. For instance, running policy simulations and computing optimal policy are tasks that can be easily
done by using Dynare. Furthermore, the implementation outlined in this paper is the only one that can
be used for higher order approximations, while the more specialized solution algorithms discussed in the
introduction can only handle linear models.
However, this methods requires an evaluation of the Euler equation using the policy functions from the model solution for a
grid of the state variables. The approach outlined in the previous section leads to an extremely large number of additional
state variables so that the computation of Euler equation errors would require the evaluation of policy functions over a high
dimensional grid of state variables, which is not feasible.

8
 Table 1: computational times

Model Lags # equations Dynare Dynare (no var. dec.)

(T ) total computing time a total computing time a,b

PANEL A
Mankiw and 16 157 2 1
Reis (2002) 24 329 4 2
32 565 19 5
PANEL B
16 571 14 4
Reis (2009) 24 1087 171 20
32 1795 1140 100
Notes. The simulations have been conducted using Dynare version 4.3.2 and Matlab version 8.0.0.783 (R2012b) on a computer
with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU working at 3.40 GHz and with 8GB of RAM. a Total computing time (seconds) as
reported by Dynare. b These results have been obtained by using the option “nomoments” in stoch_simul.

9
 Figure 1: Impulse response functions - Reis (2009) model

Note. Impulse response functions (Reis’ codes: crossed lines; Dynare: circled lines) to a productivity shock (blue), demand shock
(red), goods markups shock (cyan), labor markups shock (green) and monetary policy shock (magenta). Top panel: T = 16;
bottom panel: T = 24. Horizontal axis: quarters. Vertical axis: percentage deviation from the steady state.
10
Figure 2: Simulation accuracy and truncation points

11
Figure 3: Impulse responses of inflation to a productivity shock

Figure 4: Impulse responses of inflation to a demand shock

12
Appendix A - Core equations of the general equilibrium sticky infor-
mation model
The Reis (2009) model is an extension of the Mankiw and Reis (2002) partial equilibrium sticky information
model to a general equilibrium framework. Here we briefly introduce the five key relations of this model.8
First, the production function relates total output (yt ) to a productivity shock (at ) and hours worked (lt ):

yt = at + βlt , (A.1)

where β < 1 measures the extent of decreasing returns to scale.

Second, the sticky information Phillips curve is given by:
∞  
X i β (wt − pt ) + (1 − β) yt − at β
pt = λ (1 − λ) Et−i pt + − vt . (A.2)
i=0
β + ν (1 − β) (ν − 1) [β + ν (1 − β)]

The price level (pt ) depends on past expectations of its current value, real marginal costs and desired markups.
Marginal costs increase in real wages paid to workers (wt − pt ) and in the amount of goods produced because
of decreasing returns to scale, while an increase in aggregate productivity decreases marginal costs. The
desired markups fall with the elasticity of substitution across goods varieties (vt ), which varies randomly over
time (ν is the steady-state elasticity of substitution for goods). A key parameter in the sticky information
Phillips curve is λ. While all firms can adjust prices in each period, not all firms have up-to-date information
about the state of the economy. In particular, in each period only a fraction λ of firms does update its
information set and make new plans, while the remaining firms continue to set prices based on old plans and
outdated information. This model thus predicts that information about economic conditions disseminates
slowly through the economy.
The third equation is the sticky information IS curve:
∞
X j c
yt = δ (1 − δ) Et−j [y∞ − θRt ] + gt , (A.3)
j=0

P∞
where Rt = Et j=0 [it+j − ∆pt+1+j ] is the long-term real interest rate (it denotes the nominal short-term
c
interest rate), y∞ = limi→∞ Et (yt+i ) represents a measure of wealth and gt is an aggregate demand shock.
Higher expected future output raises wealth and increases spending, while higher expected interest rates
encourage savings and lower spending. The impact of interest rates on spending depends on the intertemporal
8 The description of the model closely follows Reis (2009, section 2), to which we refer the reader for further details.

13
elasticity of substitution θ. In each period, only a share δ of consumers updates information and plans, so
the larger the value of δ, the larger is the share of informed consumers who respond to shocks immediately.
Fourth, the sticky information wage curve is:
∞  c

X k γ (wt − pt ) lt ψ (y∞ − θRt ) ψ
wt = ω (1 − ω) Et−k pt + + + − γt . (A.4)
γ+ψ γ+ψ θ (γ + ψ) (γ + ψ) (γ − 1)
k=0

Nominal wages (wt ) increase one-to-one with the price level, since real rather than nominal wages determine
real consumption. Higher real wages increase the demand for a worker’s variety of labor and thus lead to
rising nominal wages. An increase in employment rises nominal wages because the marginal disutility of
working rises (ψ is the Frisch elasticity of labor supply). The model features a positive income effect on
leisure, so that higher wealth leads to higher nominal wages. An increase in interest rates leads to higher
returns on savings and therefore increases the incentives to work in order to save more, which in turn leads
to lower nominal wages. Finally, nominal wages decrease with an increasing elasticity of substitution across
labor varieties (γt ), since an increase in the elasticity of substitution leads to lower markups of workers (γ is
the steady-state value of γt ). The higher the share of workers informed, i.e. the larger the value of ω, the
more responsive wages are to changes in these determinants.
Finally, the Taylor rule is given by:

it = φp ∆pt + φy (yt − ytc ) − εt , (A.5)

where εt is a monetary policy shock and

 
βψ γt vt
ytc = at + gt + +
1+ψ γ−1 ν−1

denotes the classical equilibrium level of output if all agents were attentive (that is, if λ = ω = δ = 1), so
that they update their information sets in each period.
Equations (A.1)-(A.5) give the equilibrium values for prices, nominal interest rates, output, hours worked
and wages. The equations link these five variables to exogenous shocks to aggregate productivity growth
(∆at ), aggregate demand (gt ), goods markups (vt ), labor markups (γt ) and monetary policy (εt ). Each of
these shocks follows an AR (1) process with coefficients ρ∆a , ρg , ρv , ργ and ρε , and is subject to innovations
g γ
e∆a v ε
t , et , et , et and et , that are independent and normally distributed with standard deviations σ∆a , σg , σv ,
σγ and σε .

14
Appendix B - List of Dynare and Matlab Files
This appendix lists the Dynare and Matlab files used in this paper. All files are contained in the SImodels.zip
file available on the website where this paper is posted.
Folder QJE:

• MRQJE.mod is the Dynare code for solving and simulating Mankiw and Reis (2002)

• data_IRF_MR_QJE.m has the impulse response functions computed by Mankiw and Reis (2002)

• differenceMRQJEAR1.m plots the impulse response functions to a negative shock to the AR (1) aggre-
gate demand (figure 4 in Mankiw and Reis, 2002 and those resulting from Dynare)

• differenceMRQJEexp1.m plots the impulse response functions to a permanent drop in the level of
aggregate demand (figure 1 in Mankiw and Reis, 2002 and those resulting from Dynare)

Folder SIGE:

• RRSIGE.mod is the Dynare code for solving and simulating Reis (2009)

• data_IRF_SIGE.m has the impulse response functions computed by Reis (2009)

• differenceSIGE.m plots the impulse response functions to the five shocks (figure 1 in Reis, 2009 and
those resulting from Dynare)

15
References
Adjemian, S., H. Bastani, F. Karame, M. Juillard, J. Maih, F. Mihoubi, G. Perendia, M. Ratto, and S.
Villemot: 2011, ‘Dynare: Reference Manual Version 4’. Dynare Working Papers 1, CEPREMAP.

Andres, J., J. D. Lopez-Salido, and E. Nelson: 2005, ‘Sticky-price models and the natural rate hypothesis’.
Journal of Monetary Economics 52(5), 1025–1053.

Burnside, C. and M. E. Rebelo: 1993, ‘Labor Hoarding and the Business Cycle’. Journal of Political Economy
101(2), 245–273.

Christiano, L. J., M. Eichenbaum, and C. L. Evans: 2005, ‘Nominal Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a
Shock to Monetary Policy’. Journal of Political Economy 113(1), 1–45.

Cwik, T., G. J. Müller, and M. H. Wolters: 2011, ‘Does trade integration alter monetary policy transmission?’.
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 35(4), 545–564.

Golub, G. H. and C. F. van Loan: 1989, Matrix Computations. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Judd, K. L.: 1992, ‘Projection Methods for Solving Aggregate Growth Models.’. Journal of Economic Theory
58, 410–452.

Keen, B. D.: 2007, ‘Sticky Price And Sticky Information Price-Setting Models: What Is The Difference?’.
Economic Inquiry 45(4), 770–786.

Mankiw, N. G. and R. Reis: 2002, ‘Sticky Information Versus Sticky Prices: A Proposal To Replace The
New Keynesian Phillips Curve’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(4), 1295–1328.

Mankiw, N. G. and R. Reis: 2007, ‘Sticky Information in General Equilibrium’. Journal of the European
Economic Association 5(2-3), 603–613.

Meyer-Gohde, A.: 2010, ‘Linear rational-expectations models with lagged expectations: A synthetic method’.
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34(5), 984–1002.

Paustian, M. and E. Pytlarczyk: 2006, ‘Sticky contracts or sticky information? Evidence from an estimated
Euro area DSGE model’. mimeo.

Reis, R.: 2009, ‘A Sticky-information General Equilibrium Model for Policy Analysis’. In: K. Schmidt-Hebbel,
C. Walsh, and N. Loayza (eds.): Monetary Policy under Uncertainty and Learning, Vol. 13. Chapt. 8, pp.
227–283.

Trabandt, M.: 2007, ‘Sticky Information vs. Sticky Prices: a Horse Race in a DSGE Framework’. Working
Paper Series 209, Sveriges Riksbank.

16
Verona, F.: 2011, ‘Lumpy Investment in Sticky Information General Equilibrium’. CEF.UP Working Papers
2011-02, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.

Wang, P.-f. and Y. Wen: 2006, ‘Solving linear difference systems with lagged expectations by a method of
undetermined coefficients’. Working Papers 2006-003, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

17