ͽÄêɽ -¾ÜºÙ¾ðÊó-
·ï̾ | WS µÚÀî¹À´õ »á |
³«»ÏÆü»þ | 2013ǯ 1·î 16Æü (¿åÍËÆü) 16»þ30ʬ (GMT+09:00) |
½ªÎ»Æü»þ | 2013ǯ 1·î 16Æü (¿åÍËÆü) 18»þ00ʬ (GMT+09:00) |
¾ì½ê | 1¹æ´Û ¸½À¯¸¦²ñµÄ¼¼ |
¾ÜºÙ | ¡ÚÊó¹ð¼Ô¡Û¡§µÚÀî¹À´õ»á¡ÊÅìËÌÂç³Ø¡Ë ¡ÚÊó¹ð¥¿¥¤¥È¥ë¡Û¡§Cyclical Behavior of Firm-level Volatility: An Explanation for the Contrast between the United States and Japan ¡Ú¾ì½ê¡Û¡§1¹æ´Û¸½À¯¸¦²ñµÄ¼¼ ¡Ú³µÍ×¡Û ¡¡This paper presents countercyclical behavior of firm-level volatility measured by real sales growth of Japanese firms. It shows a clear contrast to the procyclicality of similarly defined volatility observed in the United States. Motivated by this fact, I build a theoretical model that is consistent with these opposite cyclical behaviors. The key is the relation between fixed and marginal cost of bankruptcy. Fixed bankruptcy cost works as an entry barrier and marginal bankruptcy cost works as an additional cost of hiring. Those distinct impacts affect compositional changes in operating firms along business cycles. The paper also examines welfare and policy implication about the optimal bankruptcy cost structure. |
¥«¥Æ¥´¥ê¡¼ | ¥ï¡¼¥¯¥·¥ç¥Ã¥×¡¦¥»¥ß¥Ê¡¼ |