10/25/2017 Does domestic uncertainty really matter for the economy?

| Bank Underground

Bank Underground
23 OCTOBER 2017 · 9:00 AM

Does domestic uncertainty really matter for

the economy?
Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi , Chris Redl, Andrej Sokol and Gregory Thwaites

Volatile economic data or political events can lead to heightened uncertainty. This can then weigh on households’ and firms’
spending and investment decisions. We revisit the question of how uncertainty affects the UK economy, by constructing new
measures of uncertainty and quantifying their effects on economic activity. We find that UK uncertainty depresses domestic
activity only insofar as it is driven by developments overseas, and that other changes in uncertainty about the UK real
economy have very little effect.

In recent years, several studies have explored the (typically) negative relationship between statistical measures of
uncertainty and economic data such as GDP or business investment, and often asserted that increases in uncertainty cause
large falls in economic activity. However, these studies have potentially conflated notions such as volatility, pessimism and
predictability and have typically relied on a narrow set of variables to derive uncertainty indicators.

In a recent paper, Jurado, Ludvigson and Ng (2015), hereafter JLN, propose an uncertainty proxy that captures when the
economy has become less predictable (i.e., forecastable) and when that decline in predictability applies to many
macroeconomic time series, thus addressing some of the shortcomings of earlier approaches. To do this, JLN construct a
large dataset of US macroeconomic and financial variables and use a model to forecast each one of them. The forecast
errors vary over time, and their standard deviation can be used as a proxy of uncertainty (taken to mean unforecastability) for
each time series. We use one period ahead forecast errors. The uncertainty indices are the averages across different groups
of macroeconomic
Privacy & Cookies:and/or financial
This site time series
uses cookies fromofWordPress.com
these time-varying
and standard deviations.
other selected ThisView
partners. approach allows
Privacy and us to produce
Cookie Policy
an uncertainty index in real time so long as all the underlying series are available.

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/10/23/does-domestic-uncertainty-really-matter-for-the-economy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-5 1/6
10/25/2017 Does domestic uncertainty really matter for the economy? | Bank Underground

We apply the same idea to UK data: we construct a monthly dataset of 29 financial and 34 macroeconomic series spanning
June 1991 to July 2016 for the U.K. and follow JLN’s methodology to extract real and financial indices that span the two
classes (Figure 1). While at low frequencies real and financial uncertainty tend to move together, at higher frequencies they
display substantial differences.

Our uncertainty measures differ substantially from other popular approaches and can yield a different read on which periods
are associated with high uncertainty. For example, Figure 1 reports the measure developed at the Bank of England, which
summarises a small number of underlying series that measure volatility in financial markets, forecaster disagreement, survey
measures of consumer and business confidence and the number of media reports citing uncertainty.

Figure 1 UK Uncertainty Measures (After JLN) and UK Uncertainty (After Quarterly Bulletin Article)

Close and accept

While both the measure constructed by Bank staff and the JLN real uncertainty index spike during the financial crisis, the
JLN index suggests less uncertainty around the ERM crisis in 1992, and more uncertainty in the early 2000s, with spikes that
are relatively minor or absent in the other measure. Also, unlike the Bank staff measure (and the JLN financial uncertainty
index in Figure 1), the JLN real uncertainty index is consistent with the stability of the UK’s real economy around that period
(although the measure did spike a few months later). That is consistent with the resilience of the UK’s real economy around
that period, despite increased volatility in financial markets.

Uncertainty as an independent cause

Earlier empirical studies of uncertainty also struggled with the fact that increased uncertainty often reflects other events,
rather than being an independent development, especially if the uncertainty measure used relies on financial market
variables. To overcome some of these issues, we apply a novel method of establishing causation (referred to in the literature
as an ‘identification strategy’) developed by Ludvigson, Ma and Ng (2017), henceforth LMN, to estimate the causal impact of
various types of uncertainty on UK real economic activity. The underlying model, a simple Vector Auto-Regression containing
the two uncertainty series (real and financial) and a measure of real activity (industrial production) is admittedly very stylised,
but the strength of LMN’s identification strategy lies in using additional external information to pin down the causal impact of
uncertainty shocks.

Identification in LMN rests on two ideas: first, uncertainty shocks (both about real and financial variables) ought to be
reflected in stock prices. For example, greater real uncertainty around GDP growth should be reflected in lower valuation for
Privacy
UK firms.& Second,
Cookies:uncertainty
This site uses cookies
shocks from
should beWordPress.com andduring
large and positive otherhistorical
selected episodes
partners. View
wherePrivacy and Cookie
uncertainty Policy
is deemed (a
priori) to have played a genuinely causal role in driving the economy: for example, in our application to the UK we require
financial uncertainty shocks to be large around the ERM crisis in 1992, during the great financial crisis of 2007-2009. Taken

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/10/23/does-domestic-uncertainty-really-matter-for-the-economy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-5 2/6
10/25/2017 Does domestic uncertainty really matter for the economy? | Bank Underground

together, these are sufficient to disentangle the effects of different types of uncertainty shocks, and to distinguish them from
other sources of macroeconomic fluctuations (which, in our model, are simply captured by a residual shock).

Figure 3 shows the model’s responses to two types of uncertainty shocks: a “real uncertainty shock” and a “financial
uncertainty shock”. The shocks are scaled to yield 1% increases in the macro uncertainty and financial uncertainty indices on
impact, respectively. We find two main results. First, real uncertainty shocks have no discernible impact on either real activity
or the financial uncertainty measure (top three panels – data are at a monthly frequency). Second, financial uncertainty
shocks appear to feed through to real activity within about a year, with a peak impact of around -0.2% on industrial
production, and with an increase in real uncertainty as part of the transmission channel (bottom three panels). This impact is
not negligible: a one standard deviation financial uncertainty shock would depress industrial production by around 2.5%, and
the level of GDP by roughly 0.4% (a crude estimate based on the share of industrial production in UK value added).

Figure 2 Impact of a 1% increase in Real (Top Row) and Financial (Bottom Row) Uncertainty on UK Variables (After
LMN)

Thus, on the face of it, financial uncertainty shocks appear to depress real activity, and also to cause uncertainty about the
real economy to rise. The story, however, might not be so straightforward. Figure 4 and Figure 5 plot the UK uncertainty
series alongside their US analogues estimated by JLN; both sets of series are highly correlated. The correlation coefficients
are 0.68 and 0.7 for real and financial uncertainty, respectively, which suggests there might be common shocks driving the
series in both countries.

Figure 3 UK and US Real Uncertainty

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies from WordPress.com and other selected partners. View Privacy and Cookie Policy

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/10/23/does-domestic-uncertainty-really-matter-for-the-economy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-5 3/6
10/25/2017 Does domestic uncertainty really matter for the economy? | Bank Underground

Figure 4 UK and US Financial Uncertainty

Indeed, a growing body of empirical evidence shows that financial (and to a certain extent real) variables are highly
synchronised across countries and largely driven by global shocks – a fact that is particularly true of small open economies
such as the United Kingdom. If this is the case, then our UK uncertainty measures can be decomposed into two
components: one that is due to movements in global uncertainty, and another due to country-specific uncertainty. These two
components could have different effects on UK GDP. We therefore seek to isolate genuinely UK-specific uncertainty shocks
from global ones in the simplest possible way, by controlling for foreign variables in our model. We do that by including in the
VAR two measures of US financial and macroeconomic uncertainty, and also a series for US industrial production, thus
taking into account both financial and real linkages (we use US variables to approximate global ones for simplicity).

Figure 5 Impact of a 1% Increase in Real (Top Row) and Financial (Bottom Row) Uncertainty on UK Variables,
controlling for US variables
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies from WordPress.com and other selected partners. View Privacy and Cookie Policy

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/10/23/does-domestic-uncertainty-really-matter-for-the-economy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-5 4/6
10/25/2017 Does domestic uncertainty really matter for the economy? | Bank Underground

Figure 5 shows the same impulse responses to UK-specific shocks, but this time controlling for US variables. While there is
little difference for real uncertainty shocks, the bottom three panels clearly show that, once we control for external factors,
UK-specific financial uncertainty shocks no longer have any discernible effect on real activity. Similarly, in ongoing research
using a richer model of the world economy and an alternative identification approach, Cesa-Bianchi et al. (2017) find that
country-specific measures of uncertainty are largely driven by global factors, and that it is this global component that can
explain some of the cyclical variation in economic activity. It could also be the case that country-specific uncertainty is
automatically offset by changes in the exchange rate, or deliberately by a change in monetary policy.

Conclusion

We presented two new measures of UK economic uncertainty computed using state-of-the-art techniques that address a
number of known issues with existing uncertainty indices. Our measures, just like most existing ones, are strongly counter-
cyclical: they tend to rise during recessions and fall during economic upswings. But interpreting this correlation in economic
terms is challenging, because causation can run both ways.

We therefore employed a recently developed technique to quantify the causal impact of uncertainty shocks on real activity,
and found that increases in our new measure of UK financial uncertainty can have a negative impact on UK real activity.
However, we then took into account that country-specific uncertainty measures share a large global component, and
attempted to disentangle global and UK-specific uncertainty shocks. We found that UK-specific uncertainty shocks have not
forecast real activity in the UK to a large extent. This could be because they do not drive activity, or because monetary policy
or the exchange rate have been able to offset them.

Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi works in the Bank’s Macro-Financial Analysis Division, Chris Redl works in the Bank’s
Monetary Analysis Division, Andrej Sokol and Gregory Thwaites work in the Bank’s Global Spillovers and
Interconnections Division.

If you want to get in touch, please email us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or leave a comment below.

Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied.

Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy
orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of
England, or its policy committees.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies from WordPress.com and other selected partners. View Privacy and Cookie Policy

Share this:

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/10/23/does-domestic-uncertainty-really-matter-for-the-economy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-5 5/6
10/25/2017 Does domestic uncertainty really matter for the economy? | Bank Underground

      
17 9
More

One response to “Does domestic uncertainty

really matter for the economy?”

John H. Mesrobian
23 October 2017 at 2:59 pm

Simply its Social Mood that effects economy, attitudes and Markets. Positive Mood things are fine but a change of Social
Mod to Negative spells trouble for the Economy, Markets. Gov’ts and etc.

Simply go back in time and graph Social Mood and Mkts and Economy and you will see it moves in WAVES over long
history back to the 1700’s.

We are now in a change of mood from Positive to Negative and in many cases in Negative Social Mood, this will have it
effects on the MKTS going forward.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies from WordPress.com and other selected partners. View Privacy and Cookie Policy

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/10/23/does-domestic-uncertainty-really-matter-for-the-economy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-5 6/6