Abstract
This study provides a meta-analysis of the Calvo parameter estimated within the new Keynesian Phillips curve using a data set of 509 estimates from 40 studies published in a quarter century. Novel linear and non-linear techniques suggest publication bias distorting the reported estimates towards typical values of the Calvo parameter used for calibration.
Moreover, Bayesian model averaging results indicate that the reported estimates are systematically affected by various aspects of research design, particularly the choice of forcing variable in the NKPC, instrument selection, and authors' affiliation.