Why Applied Macroeconomists Should Not Use Bayesian Estimation of DSGE Models

This paper argues that the common practice of Bayesian estimation in applied macroeconomic DSGE modeling can lead to severely biased results when the imposed prior beliefs are misspecified. We demonstrate, through controlled Monte Carlo experiments on two canonical DSGE models (a Real Business Cycle model and a New Keynesian model), that Bayesian estimation may yield misleading parameter estimates, often gravitating toward the researcher’s prior at the expense of empirical accuracy. In contrast, we show that Indirect Inference, a simulation-based classical estimation approach, remains largely unbiased and robust even under substantial model uncertainty. These findings suggest that heavy reliance on Bayesian estimation can perpetuate false conclusions (for example, overstating nominal rigidities) and thereby misguide policy analysis. We advocate greater use of robust estimation and model validation techniques, like Indirect Inference, to ensure that model-based policy guidance rests on credible empirical foundations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Open Economies Review
Published
2026-04-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-026-09868-2
Primary Topic
Monetary Policy and Economic Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why Applied Macroeconomists Should Not Use Bayesian Estimation of DSGE Models

David Meenagh, Yongdeng Xu, Patrick Minford
Open Economies Review
Monetary Policy and Economic Impact
article

Why Applied Macroeconomists Should Not Use Bayesian Estimation of DSGE Models

David Meenagh, Yongdeng Xu, Patrick Minford
article en

Abstract

This paper argues that the common practice of Bayesian estimation in applied macroeconomic DSGE modeling can lead to severely biased results when the imposed prior beliefs are misspecified. We demonstrate, through controlled Monte Carlo experiments on two canonical DSGE models (a Real Business Cycle model and a New Keynesian model), that Bayesian estimation may yield misleading parameter estimates, often gravitating toward the researcher’s prior at the expense of empirical accuracy. In contrast, we show that Indirect Inference, a simulation-based classical estimation approach, remains largely unbiased and robust even under substantial model uncertainty. These findings suggest that heavy reliance on Bayesian estimation can perpetuate false conclusions (for example, overstating nominal rigidities) and thereby misguide policy analysis. We advocate greater use of robust estimation and model validation techniques, like Indirect Inference, to ensure that model-based policy guidance rests on credible empirical foundations.

Open Economies Review
Cardiff University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Monetary Policy and Economic Impact
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.