Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP3561
Authors: Jean Imbs
Abstract: I revisit the relationship between growth and volatility in two different disaggregated datasets. I confirm that growth and volatility are negatively related across countries, but show that the relation reverses itself across sectors. This phenomenon, sometimes called the ?Simpson?s fallacy?, has a natural interpretation in the present context: it is the component of aggregate volatility that is common across sectors that correlates negatively with aggregate growth. Furthermore, while investment and volatility are unrelated in the aggregate, sectoral investment is shown to be more intense in volatile activities, as if the return to capital were higher there. These results call for a distinction between macroeconomic and sectoral volatilities, not unlike that between macroeconomics, where volatility often means policy-driven instability, and finance, where volatility reflects risk, and thus high returns.
Keywords: growth; sectors; volatility
JEL Codes: E32; E40
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| aggregate growth (E10) | aggregate volatility (E10) |
| sectoral growth (O41) | sectoral volatility (L16) |
| aggregate volatility (E10) | aggregate growth (E10) |
| sectoral volatility (L16) | sectoral growth (O41) |
| common component of aggregate volatility (E32) | aggregate growth (E10) |
| sector-specific volatility (C58) | sectoral growth (O41) |
| sectoral investment (E20) | sectoral volatility (L16) |