Household investment leads nonresidential business fixed investment over the U.S. business cycle. Because real business cycle theory has not been able to account for this observation, it represents a potent challenge to the view that transitory productivity disturbances are the main source of aggregate fluctuations. This paper reconciles RBC theory with the investment dynamics by extending the traditional home production model to make household capital complementary to business capital and labor in market production. Empirical evidence suggesting that household capital is a complementary input in market production is also presented.

The neoclassical growth model is used to identify the short‐run effects of neutral technology shocks, which affect the production of all goods homogeneously, and investment‐specific shocks, which affect only investment goods. The real equipment price, crucial for identifying the investment shocks, experiences an abrupt increase in its average rate of decline in 1982, so the analysis is based on a split sample. On the basis of the preferred specification, the two technology shocks account for 73 percent of hours’ and 44 percent of output’s business cycle variation before 1982, and 38 percent and 80 percent afterward. The shocks also account for more than 40 percent of hours’ and 58 percent of output’s forecast errors over a three‐ to eight‐year horizon in both samples. The majority of these effects are driven by the investment shocks.

We study the aggregate implications of (S, s) inventory policies in a dynamic general equilibrium model with aggregate uncertainty. Firms in the model's retail sector face idiosyncratic demand risk, and (S, s) inventory policies are optimal because of fixed order costs. The distribution of inventory holdings affects the aggregate outcome in two ways: variation in the decision to order and variation in the rate of sale through the pricing decisions of retailers. We find that both mechanisms must operate to reconcile observations that orders are more volatile than, and inventory investment is positively correlated with, sales, while remaining consistent with other salient business cycle characteristics. The model exhibits strong amplification for some shocks and persistence to a limited extent.

Two modifications are introduced into the standard real-business-cycle model: habit preferences and a two-sector technology with limited intersectoral factor mobility. The model is consistent with the observed mean risk-free rate, equity premium, and Sharpe ratio on equity. In addition, its business-cycle implications represent a substantial improvement over the standard model. It accounts for persistence in output, comovement of employment across different sectors over the business cycle, the evidence of “excess sensitivity” of consumption growth to output growth, and the “inverted leading-indicator property of interest rates,” that interest rates are negatively correlated with future output.

Cities exist because of the productivity gains that arise from clustering production and workers, a process called agglomeration. How important is agglomeration for aggregate growth? This paper constructs a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model of cities and uses it to estimate the effect of local agglomeration on aggregate growth. We combine aggregate time-series and city-level panel data to estimate the model's parameters via generalized method of moments. The estimates imply a statistically and economically significant impact of local agglomeration on the growth rate of per capita consumption, raising it by about 10%.

We provide a simple explanation for the observation from the U.S. manufacturing sector that the job destruction rate fluctuates more than the job creation rate. In our model, proportional plant-level costs of creating and destroying jobs cause shrinking plants to be more sensitive to aggregate shocks than growing plants. We describe circumstances in which this microeconomic asymmetry is preserved in the aggregate and show that it can account for much of the observed asymmetries in gross job flows. This is so even though we abstract from job matching frictions, incomplete contracts, and aggregate congestion effects.