Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
National Institute Economic Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Massmann, M.
Right arrow Articles by Weale, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Business Cycles and Turning Points: A Survey of Statistical Techniques

Michael Massmann

National Institute of Economic and Social Research

James Mitchell

National Institute of Economic and Social Research, j.mitchell{at}niesr.ac.uk

Martin Weale

National Institute of Economic and Social Research, mweale{at}niesr.ac.uk

The business cycle has an importance in the popular debate which can tend to run ahead of the problems in measuring it. This paper provides a survey of the main statistical techniques that are used to measure the cycle. An application to the UK illustrates that the choice of what measure, or measures, to use is more than a dry academic issue. Inference about the business cycle is potentially sensitive to measurement. Fortunately, however, there is an element of consensus.

National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 183, No. 1, 90-106 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0027950103183001465
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
S. Kirby and J. Mitchell
Prudence and UK Trend Growth
National Institute Economic Review, January 1, 2006; 197(1): 58 - 64.
[PDF]

Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
S. Kirby, R. Metz, R. Riley, and M. Weale
Prospects for the UK Economy
National Institute Economic Review, April 1, 2004; 188(1): 36 - 55.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
R. Metz, R. Riley, and M. Weale
Economic Performance in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: 1997-2002
National Institute Economic Review, April 1, 2004; 188(1): 83 - 99.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
R. Barell and S. Gottschalk
The Volatility of the Output Gap in the G7
National Institute Economic Review, April 1, 2004; 188(1): 100 - 107.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
R. Barrell and M. Weale
Fiscal Demand Management
National Institute Economic Review, July 1, 2003; 185(1): 5 - 8.
[PDF]

Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
R. Barrell, S. Kirby, and R. Riley
Changing the Inflation Target
National Institute Economic Review, July 1, 2003; 185(1): 50 - 53.
[PDF]

Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
R. Barrell, S. Kirby, R. Riley, and M. Weale
The UK Economy
National Institute Economic Review, April 1, 2003; 184(1): 36 - 42.
[PDF]