An Estimated DSGE Model of the Indian Economy.



where consumption, technical LAP, the real wage and tax rates, and government spending
(all indicated by
Xt) are growing at a common growth rate.

There are three parameters AF, AI and w that are dependent on the units chosen and
therefore cannot be calibrated nor estimated. By choice of units of labour in both sectors,
and units of capital and labour, we can normalize
AF = AI = 1. Then instead of estimating
w for which we can have no priors we estimate a
dimensionless quantity: the relative nominal
outputs for the two sectors
relY . In terms of the endogenous steady state variable w we
then have

relY


PfYf = 'w Pt 1-- Ct + (PF) (It + Gt)
Pi Y- =      (1 - w) ( P ´1 -μ CIt

(B.1)


(B.2)


From (B.1) we can solve for w to obtain

w=


relγ ( P ´1 μ Ct - ( P ´ (It + Gt)
( P )1 ~μ Ct + relY ( P )1 ~μ Ct

so we can solve for w as a post-recursive variable. This completes the specification of the
model which now includes
relY as a parameter to be estimated, which has been switched
with w which is now an endogenous variable in the steady state.

We can also use data for the the relative numbers of workers employed in the formal
sector
reln given in the model by

rel =     (1 - ʌ) nF

(B.3)


n (1 - A)(1 - nF) + A

From Marjit and Kar (2008) we learn that in 2001 80% workers in industry were informal
and they contributed 28% to GDP. This implies
reln = 0.25 and relY = 2.6 implying
a formal-informal labour productivity ratio of around 10:1. Sen and Kolli (2009) suggest
estimates
reln = 0.1 and relY = 1.1 implying a slightly higher productivity ratio 1:11. Rada
(2009) provide estimates
reln = 0.075. relY = 0.68 implying a slightly lower productivity
ratio 1:9.
16

The question is: how can the model be calibrated to reproduce this high productivity
gap? There are two parameters we can vary that increase the size of the informal sector and
reduce its marginal product of labour: the mark-up of the real wage in the formal sector
over that in the informal sector,
rw, and labour shares in production, αI and αI . Figure
2 puts
αF = 0.6 < αI = 0.8 and varies rw, Figure 3 puts αF = 0.5 < αI = 0.8 and again

16 This productivity gap seems very high. Ila Patnaik has pointed out that the informal sector employment
numbers may be exaggerated as they include all household members, employed or otherwise, in the household
sector. As a first attempt we therefore choose priors
reln = 0.2, relY = 1 implying a productivity ratio of
1:5.

40



More intriguing information

1. Federal Tax-Transfer Policy and Intergovernmental Pre-Commitment
2. Cyclical Changes in Short-Run Earnings Mobility in Canada, 1982-1996
3. THE WELFARE EFFECTS OF CONSUMING A CANCER PREVENTION DIET
4. Alzheimer’s Disease and Herpes Simplex Encephalitis
5. Activation of s28-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli by the cyclic AMP receptor protein requires an unusual promoter organization
6. The name is absent
7. Nonparametric cointegration analysis
8. Policy Formulation, Implementation and Feedback in EU Merger Control
9. The name is absent
10. Gianluigi Zenti, President, Academia Barilla SpA - The Changing Consumer: Demanding but Predictable
11. PROPOSED IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM & FARM LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES
12. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF THE MEXICAN MARKET FOR U.S. COTTON: IMPACT OF THE ELIMINATION OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING QUOTAS
13. Standards behaviours face to innovation of the entrepreneurships of Beira Interior
14. DEVELOPING COLLABORATION IN RURAL POLICY: LESSONS FROM A STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
15. The name is absent
16. Do imputed education histories provide satisfactory results in fertility analysis in the Western German context?
17. The name is absent
18. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*
19. The name is absent
20. For Whom is MAI? A theoretical Perspective on Multilateral Agreements on Investments