We study how idiosyncratic income risk shapes the aggregate and distributional effects of labor and capital income taxation in dynamic general equilibrium models. To this end, we compare a heterogeneous-agent (HA) model with uninsurable idiosyncratic labor productivity risk and a ten-representative-agent (TE) model in which households correspond to fixed wealth deciles without such risk. At the aggregate level, both models generate qualitatively similar responses; however, the HA model exhibits a smaller recessionary impact driven by precautionary savings behavior, which stabilizes investment. At the distributional level, the models differ sharply. In the HA framework, tax shocks trigger endogenous mobility across wealth deciles. These inter-decile transition dynamics tend to benefit lower deciles. In contrast, the TA model features fixed household positions. Our findings highlight that while simpler multi-representative-agent models can approximate aggregate dynamics well, they may miss important distributional adjustment channels. The relevance of these mechanisms ultimately depends on the empirical importance of mobility across the wealth distribution, pointing to a key trade-off between model simplicity and accuracy.

Measuring innovation is challenging both for researchers and for national statisticians, and it is increasingly important in light of the ongoing digital revolution. National accounts and many other economic statistics were designed before the emergence of the digital economy and the growing importance of intangible capital. They do not yet fully capture the wide range of innovative activity that is observed in modern economies.
This volume examines how to measure innovation, track its effects on economic activity and prices, and understand how it has changed the structure of production processes, labor markets, and organizational form and operation in business. The contributors explore new approaches to, and data sources for, measurement—such as collecting data for a particular innovation as opposed to a firm, and the use of trademarks for tracking innovation. They also consider the connections between university-based R&D and business startups, and the potential impacts of innovation on income distribution.
The research suggests potential strategies for expanding current measurement frameworks to better capture innovative activity, such as more detailed tracking of global value chains to identify innovation across time and space, and expanding the measurement of the GDP impacts of innovation in fields such as consumer content delivery and cloud computing.

Measuring innovation is challenging both for researchers and for national statisticians, and it is increasingly important in light of the ongoing digital revolution. National accounts and many other economic statistics were designed before the emergence of the digital economy and the growing importance of intangible capital. They do not yet fully capture the wide range of innovative activity that is observed in modern economies. This volume examines how to measure innovation, track its effects on economic activity and prices, and understand how it has changed the structure of production processes, labor markets, and organizational form and operation in business. The contributors explore new approaches to, and data sources for, measurement—such as collecting data for a particular innovation as opposed to a firm, and the use of trademarks for tracking innovation. They also consider the connections between university-based R&D and business startups, and the potential impacts of innovation on income distribution. The research suggests potential strategies for expanding current measurement frameworks to better capture innovative activity, such as more detailed tracking of global value chains to identify innovation across time and space, and expanding the measurement of the GDP impacts of innovation in fields such as consumer content delivery and cloud computing.

This paper presents a method to conduct early estimates of GDP growth in Germany. We employ MIDAS regressions to circumvent the mixed frequency problem and use pooling techniques to summarize efficiently the information content of the various indicators. More specifically, we investigate whether it is better to disaggregate GDP (either via total value added of each sector or by the expenditure side) or whether a direct approach is more appropriate when it comes to forecasting GDP growth. Our approach combines a large set of monthly and quarterly coincident and leading indicators and takes into account the respective publication delay. In a simulated out-of-sample experiment we evaluate the different modelling strategies conditional on the given state of information and depending on the model averaging technique. The proposed approach is computationally simple and can be easily implemented as a nowcasting tool. Finally, this method also allows retracing the driving forces of the forecast and hence enables the interpretability of the forecast outcome.

Existing papers on extreme dependence use symmetrical thresholds to define simultaneous stock market booms or crashes such as the joint occurrence of the upper or lower one percent return quantile in both stock markets. We show that the probability of the joint occurrence of extreme stock returns may be higher for asymmetric thresholds than for symmetric thresholds. We propose a non-parametric measure of extreme dependence which allows capturing extreme events for different thresholds and can be used to compute different types of extreme dependence. We find that extreme dependence among the stock markets of ten initial EMU member countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States is largely asymmetrical in the pre-EMU period (1989–1998) and largely symmetrical in the EMU period (1999–2010). Our findings suggest that ignoring the possibility of asymmetric extreme dependence may lead to an underestimation of the probability of co-booms and co-crashes.