# Gali et al. (2007) - Issue with market clearing condition

**URL:** <https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/t/gali-et-al-2007-issue-with-market-clearing-condition/81>\
**Category:** Questions to specific model replications\
**Created:** [April 26, 2019, 12:01pm UTC](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/t/gali-et-al-2007-issue-with-market-clearing-condition/81 "2019-04-26T12:01:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Yannik1990](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b2d939/32.png) [@Yannik1990](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/u/Yannik1990)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 12:01pm UTC](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/t/gali-et-al-2007-issue-with-market-clearing-condition/81/1 "2019-04-26T12:01:11Z")

</div>

Dear MBB-Team,

we are currently working on the Gali et al. (2007) model using your replication code as basis.  
However, we are wondering whether the market clearing condition in the replication as well as in the paper are correct. We believe that the log linearized form shoud be:

y = gamma\_c_c + gamma\_i_i + gamma\_g\*g,

i.e. gamma\_g is missing.

We are looking forward to your reply.  
Kind regards,  
Yannik

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fstrobel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b3f665/32.png) [@fstrobel](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/u/fstrobel)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2019, 1:10pm UTC](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/t/gali-et-al-2007-issue-with-market-clearing-condition/81/2 "2019-04-29T13:10:45Z")

</div>

Dear Yannik,

the notation in this equation is somewhat misleading.

After log-linearization, the market clearing condition should read:  
y\_t_Y = c\_t_C + i\_t_I + g\_t_G,  
where small letters denote log-deviations of the variables from their steady state, and capital letters denote the steady state values of the corresponding variable.  
So, after dividing by Y:  
y\_t = c\_t_C/Y + i\_t_I/Y + g\_t\*G/Y.

As it holds that gamma\_c==C/Y and gamma\_i==I/Y, in a consistent notation there should be a gamma\_g==G/Y in the equation. However, on page 241 of the paper the authors define: g\_t to be (G\_t-G)/Y\_t, i.e. the fraction G/Y is already included in the definition of g\_t.

Best,  
Felix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Yannik1990](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b2d939/32.png) [@Yannik1990](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/u/Yannik1990)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 12:31pm UTC](https://discourse.macromodelbase.com/t/gali-et-al-2007-issue-with-market-clearing-condition/81/3 "2019-05-10T12:31:01Z")

</div>

Dear Felix,

thank you very much for your fast reply. As a next step, we try to add monetary policy to the paper.

Therefore, we add the following equations:  
r = phi\_pi_pi + e\_mp; Taylor Rule depening on Inflation  
e\_mp = rho\_emp_e\_mp(-1)+eta\_r; AR(1) shock process in the taylor rule

Furthermore, we adapt equation C(6) on the left side as follows:  
c - theta\_n\*n + r/sigma\_bar

As a result, however, we receive unlogical results: I.e. investments are increasing after an increase in the interest rate…

Did we forget something. How would the could have to look like if adding monetary policy and considering a monetary policy shock?

Best regards,  
Yannik