DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter Ten Intertemporal Choice Present and Future Values Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter Ten Intertemporal Choice Present and Future Values Future Intertemporal Choice • Persons often receive income in “lumps”; e.g. monthly salary. Chapter Ten • How is a lump of income spread over the following month (saving now for consumption later)? Intertemporal Choice • Or how is consumption financed by borrowing now against income to be received at the end of the month? Present and Future Values Future Value • Begin with some simple financial • E.g., if r = 0.1 then $100 saved at the start arithmetic. of period 1 becomes $110 at the start of • Take just two periods; 1 and 2. period 2. • Let r denote the interest rate per period. • The value next period of $1 saved now is the future value of that dollar. 1 Future Value Present Value • Suppose you can pay now to obtain $1 • Given an interest rate r the future value at the start of next period. one period from now of $1 is • What is the most you should pay? FV === 1 +++ r. • $1? • No. If you kept your $1 now and saved • Given an interest rate r the future value it then at the start of next period you one period from now of $m is would have $(1+r) > $1, so paying $1 FV === m(1 +++ r). now for $1 next period is a bad deal. Present Value Present Value • Q: How much money would have to be • The present value of $1 available at the saved now, in the present, to obtain $1 at start of the next period is the start of the next period? 1 PV === . • A: $m saved now becomes $m(1+r) at 1 +++ r the start of next period, so we want the • And the present value of $m available at value of m for which the start of the next period is m(1+r) = 1 m PV === . That is, m = 1/(1+r), +++ the present-value of $1 obtained at the 1 r start of next period. 2 The Intertemporal Choice Present Value Problem • E.g., if r = 0.1 then the most you should pay now for $1 available next period is • Let m 1 and m 2 be incomes received in 1 periods 1 and 2. PV === ===$0⋅⋅⋅ 91 . • Let c and c be consumptions in periods 1 1 +++ 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 1 1 2 • And if r = 0.2 then the most you should and 2. pay now for $1 available next period is • Let p 1 and p 2 be the prices of consumption in periods 1 and 2. 1 PV === ===$0⋅⋅⋅ 83 . 1 +++ 0 ⋅⋅⋅ 2 The Intertemporal Choice Problem The Intertemporal Budget • The intertemporal choice problem: Constraint Given incomes m 1 and m 2, and given • To start, let’s ignore price effects by consumption prices p 1 and p 2, what is the supposing that most preferred intertemporal consumption bundle (c 1, c 2)? p1 = p 2 = $1. • For an answer we need to know: – the intertemporal budget constraint – intertemporal consumption preferences. 3 The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint c2 • Suppose that the consumer chooses not So (c 1, c 2) = (m 1, m 2) is the to save or to borrow. consumption bundle if the consumer chooses neither to • Q: What will be consumed in period 1? save nor to borrow. • A: c 1 = m 1. • Q: What will be consumed in period 2? m2 • A: c 2 = m 2. 0 0 m1 c1 The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint • Now suppose that the consumer spends • Period 2 income is m 2. nothing on consumption in period 1; that is, • Savings plus interest from period 1 sum c1 = 0 and the consumer saves to (1 + r )m 1. s1 = m 1. • So total income available in period 2 is • The interest rate is r. m2 + (1 + r )m 1. • What now will be period 2’s consumption • So period 2 consumption expenditure is level? = + + c2 == m2 ++ (1 ++ r )m1 4 The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint c2 c2 = + + the future-value of the income (c1,c2 ) == (((0,m2 ++ (1 ++ r)m1))) m +++ m +++ 2 endowment 2 is the consumption bundle when all +++ +++ ()1 r m1 ()1 r m1 period 1 income is saved. m2 m2 0 0 0 m1 c1 0 m1 c1 The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint • Now suppose that the consumer spends • Only $m 2 will be available in period 2 to everything possible on consumption in pay back $b 1 borrowed in period 1. period 1, so c = 0. 2 • So b 1(1 + r ) = m 2. • What is the most that the consumer can • That is, b 1 = m 2 / (1 + r ). borrow in period 1 against her period 2 • So the largest possible period 1 income of $m ? 2 consumption level is • Let b denote the amount borrowed in 1 m2 period 1. c=== m +++ 1 1 1 +++ r 5 The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint c2 = + + c2 = + + (c1,c2 ) == (((0,m2 ++ (1 ++ r)m1))) (c1,c2 ) == (((0,m2 ++ (1 ++ r)m1))) m +++ m +++ 2 is the consumption bundle when all 2 is the consumption bundle when +++ +++ ()1 r m1 period 1 income is saved. ()1 r m1 period 1 saving is as large as possible. m (,),c c=== m +++ 2 0 1 2 1 +++ the present-value of 1 r m m is the consumption bundle 2 the income endowment 2 when period 1 borrowing is as big as possible. 0 0 m m c m m c 0 1 m +++ 2 1 0 1 m +++ 2 1 1 1 +++ r 1 1 +++ r The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint c2 = + + (c1,c2 ) == (((0,m2 ++ (1 ++ r)m1))) • Suppose that c units are consumed in m +++ 1 2 is the consumption bundle when +++ period 1. This costs $c 1 and leaves m 1- c1 ()1 r m1 period 1 saving is as large as possible. saved. Period 2 consumption will then be = + m2 (,),c1 c 2== m 1 ++ 0 = + + − 1 +++ r which is c2 == m2 ++ (1 ++ r)( m1 −− c1) m2 is the consumption bundle === −−− +++ +++ +++ +++ when period 1 borrowing c2 (1 r)c1 m2 (1 r )m1. is as big as possible. 0 m m c 0 1 m +++ 2 1 slope intercept 1 1 +++ r 6 The Intertemporal Budget The Intertemporal Budget Constraint Constraint c2 c === −−−(1 +++ r)c +++ m +++ (1 +++ r )m . (1 +++ r )c +++ c === (1 +++ r )m +++ m + 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 m2 ++ is the “future-valued” form of the budget (1 +++ r)m S slope = -(1+r) 1 a constraint since all terms are in period 2 vi ng values. This is equivalent to c m B c +++ 2 ===m +++ 2 o 1 +++ 1 +++ m2 rr 1 r 1 r ow i which is the “present-valued” form of the ng 0 constraint since all terms are in period 1 m m c 0 1 m +++ 2 1 values. 1 1 +++ r The Intertemporal Budget Intertemporal Choice Constraint • Now let’s add prices p 1 and p 2 for • Given her endowment (m 1,m 2) and prices consumption in periods 1 and 2. p1, p 2 what intertemporal consumption • How does this affect the budget constraint? bundle (c 1*,c 2*) will be chosen by the consumer? • Maximum possible expenditure in period 2 is + + m2 ++ (1 ++ r )m1 so maximum possible consumption in period 2 is +++ +++ = m2(1 r )m 1 c 2 == . p2 7 Intertemporal Choice Intertemporal Choice • Similarly, maximum possible expenditure • Finally, if c 1 units are consumed in period in period 1 is 1 then the consumer spends p 1c1 in period m 1, leaving m - p c saved for period 1. m +++ 2 1 1 1 1 1 +++ r Available income in period 2 will then be so maximum possible consumption in period 1 is so m +++ (1 +++ r)( m −−− p c ) +++ +++ 2 1 1 1 === m1m 2 / (1 r ) c1 . p c === m +++ (1 +++ r)( m −−− p c ). p1 2 2 2 1 1 1 The Intertemporal Budget Intertemporal Choice Constraint = + + − c2 (1 +++ r )p c +++ p c === (1 +++ r )m +++ m p2c2 == m2 ++ (1 ++ r )( m1 −− p1c1 ) + + 1 1 2 2 1 2 (1 ++ r )m1++ m 2 rearranged is p2 + + = + + S −−−+++ p1 (1 ++ r )p1c1 ++ p2c 2 == (1 ++ r )m1 ++ m 2 . a Slope = ()1 r vi p This is the “future-valued” form of the ng 2 budget constraint since all terms are B o expressed in period 2 values. Equivalent m2/p 2 rr ow to it is the “present-valued” form i ng + p 2 =+ m 2 p1 c 1 ++ c2== m 1 ++ 0 1 +++ r 1 +++ r 0 m1/p 1 c1 + + where all terms are expressed in period 1 m1++ m 2 / (1 ++ r ) values. p1 8 Price Inflation Price Inflation • Define the inflation rate by π where • We lose nothing by setting p 1=1 so that p = 1+ π . p (1 +++ πππ ) === p . 2 1 2 • Then we can rewrite the budget constraint • For example, p m π = 0.2 means 20% inflation, and p c +++ 2 c=== m +++ 2 1 1 +++ 2 1 +++ π = 1.0 means 100% inflation. as 1 r 1 r 1 +++ πππ m c +++ c=== m +++ 2 11 +++ r 2 1 1 +++ r Price Inflation Price Inflation +++ πππ • When there was no price inflation + 1 =+ m 2 c1++ c 2== m 1 ++ 1 +++ r 1 +++ r (p 1=p 2=1) the slope of the budget rearranges to constraint was -(1+r). 1 +++ r m • Now, with price inflation, the slope of c === −−− c +++ 1( +++ πππ) 1 +++ m π 2 1 +++ πππ 1 1 +++ r 2 the budget constraint is -(1+r)/(1+ ).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 17: Consumption 1
    11/6/2013 Keynes’s conjectures Chapter 17: Consumption 1. 0 < MPC < 1 2. Average propensity to consume (APC) falls as income rises. (APC = C/Y ) 3. Income is the main determinant of consumption. CHAPTER 17 Consumption 0 CHAPTER 17 Consumption 1 The Keynesian consumption function The Keynesian consumption function As income rises, consumers save a bigger C C fraction of their income, so APC falls. CCcY CCcY c c = MPC = slope of the 1 CC consumption APC c C function YY slope = APC Y Y CHAPTER 17 Consumption 2 CHAPTER 17 Consumption 3 Early empirical successes: Problems for the Results from early studies Keynesian consumption function . Households with higher incomes: . Based on the Keynesian consumption function, . consume more, MPC > 0 economists predicted that C would grow more . save more, MPC < 1 slowly than Y over time. save a larger fraction of their income, . This prediction did not come true: APC as Y . As incomes grew, APC did not fall, . Very strong correlation between income and and C grew at the same rate as income. consumption: . Simon Kuznets showed that C/Y was income seemed to be the main very stable in long time series data. determinant of consumption CHAPTER 17 Consumption 4 CHAPTER 17 Consumption 5 1 11/6/2013 The Consumption Puzzle Irving Fisher and Intertemporal Choice . The basis for much subsequent work on Consumption function consumption. C from long time series data (constant APC ) . Assumes consumer is forward-looking and chooses consumption for the present and future to maximize lifetime satisfaction. Consumption function . Consumer’s choices are subject to an from cross-sectional intertemporal budget constraint, household data a measure of the total resources available for (falling APC ) present and future consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Theory of Intertemporal Policy Choice Alan M. Jacobs
    Democracy, Public Policy, and Timing: Toward a Theory of Intertemporal Policy Choice Alan M. Jacobs Department of Political Science University of British Columbia C472 – 1866 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1 [email protected] DRAFT: DO NOT CITE Presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 3-5, 2004, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. In the title to a 1950 book, Harold Lasswell provided what has become a classic definition of politics: “Who Gets What, When, How.”1 Lasswell’s definition is an invitation to study political life as a fundamental process of distribution, a struggle over the production and allocation of valued goods. It is striking how much of political analysis – particularly the study of what governments do – has assumed this distributive emphasis. It would be only a slight simplification to describe the fields of public policy, welfare state politics, and political economy as comprised largely of investigations of who gets or loses what, and how. Why and through what causal mechanisms, scholars have inquired, do governments take actions that benefit some groups and disadvantage others? Policy choice itself has been conceived of primarily as a decision about how to pay for, produce, and allocate socially valued outcomes. Yet, this massive and varied research agenda has almost completely ignored one part of Lasswell’s short definition. The matter of when – when the benefits and costs of policies arrive – seems somehow to have slipped the discipline’s collective mind. While we have developed subtle theoretical tools for explaining how governments impose costs and allocate goods at any given moment, we have devoted extraordinarily little attention to illuminating how they distribute benefits and burdens over time.
    [Show full text]
  • ECON 302: Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory (Fall 2014)
    ECON 302: Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory (Fall 2014) Discussion Section 2 September 19, 2014 SOME KEY CONCEPTS and REVIEW CHAPTER 3: Credit Market Intertemporal Decisions • Budget constraint for period (time) t P ct + bt = P yt + bt−1 (1 + R) Interpretation of P : note that the unit of the equation is dollar valued. The real value of one dollar is the amount of goods this one dollar can buy is 1=P that is, the real value of bond is bt=P , the real value of consumption is P ct=P = ct. Normalization: we sometimes normalize price P = 1, when there is no ination. • A side note for income yt: one may associate yt with `t since yt = f (`t) here that is, output is produced by labor. • Two-period model: assume household lives for two periods that is, there are t = 1; 2. Household is endowed with bond or debt b0 at the beginning of time t = 1. The lifetime income is given by (y1; y2). The decision variables are (c1; c2; b1; b2). Hence, we have two budget-constraint equations: P c1 + b1 = P y1 + b0 (1 + R) P c2 + b2 = P y2 + b1 (1 + R) Combining the two equations gives the intertemporal (lifetime) budget constraint: c y b (1 + R) b c + 2 = y + 2 + 0 − 2 1 1 + R 1 1 + R P P (1 + R) | {z } | {z } | {z } | {z } (a) (b) (c) (d) (a) is called real present value of lifetime consumption, (b) is real present value of lifetime income, (c) is real present value of endowment, and (d) is real present value of bequest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intertemporal Keynesian Cross
    The Intertemporal Keynesian Cross Adrien Auclert Matthew Rognlie Ludwig Straub February 14, 2018 PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE,PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE Abstract This paper develops a novel approach to analyzing the transmission of shocks and policies in many existing macroeconomic models with nominal rigidities. Our approach is centered around a network representation of agents’ spending patterns: nodes are goods markets at different times, and flows between nodes are agents’ marginal propensities to spend income earned in one node on another one. Since, in general equilibrium, one agent’s spending is an- other agent’s income, equilibrium demand in each node is described by a recursive equation with a special structure, which we call the intertemporal Keynesian cross (IKC). Each solution to the IKC corresponds to an equilibrium of the model, and the direction of indeterminacy is given by the network’s eigenvector centrality measure. We use results from Markov chain potential theory to tightly characterize all solutions. In particular, we derive (a) a generalized Taylor principle to ensure bounded equilibrium determinacy; (b) how most shocks do not af- fect the net present value of aggregate spending in partial equilibrium and nevertheless do so in general equilibrium; (c) when heterogeneity matters for the aggregate effect of monetary and fiscal policy. We demonstrate the power of our approach in the context of a quantitative Bewley-Huggett-Aiyagari economy for fiscal and monetary policy. 1 Introduction One of the most important questions in macroeconomics is that of how shocks are propagated and amplified in general equilibrium. Recently, shocks that have received particular attention are those that affect households in heterogeneous ways—such as tax rebates, changes in monetary policy, falls in house prices, credit crunches, or increases in economic uncertainty or income in- equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Intertemporal Choice and Competitive Equilibrium
    Intertemporal Choice and Competitive Equilibrium Kirsten I.M. Rohde °c Kirsten I.M. Rohde, 2006 Published by Universitaire Pers Maastricht ISBN-10 90 5278 550 3 ISBN-13 978 90 5278 550 9 Printed in The Netherlands by Datawyse Maastricht Intertemporal Choice and Competitive Equilibrium PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Maastricht, op gezag van de Rector Magni¯cus, prof. mr. G.P.M.F. Mols volgens het besluit van het College van Decanen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 13 oktober 2006 om 14.00 uur door Kirsten Ingeborg Maria Rohde UMP UNIVERSITAIRE PERS MAASTRICHT Promotores: Prof. dr. P.J.J. Herings Prof. dr. P.P. Wakker Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. H.J.M. Peters (voorzitter) Prof. dr. T. Hens (University of ZÄurich, Switzerland) Prof. dr. A.M. Riedl Contents Acknowledgments v 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Intertemporal Choice . 2 1.2 Intertemporal Behavior . 4 1.3 General Equilibrium . 5 I Intertemporal Choice 9 2 Koopmans' Constant Discounting: A Simpli¯cation and an Ex- tension to Incorporate Economic Growth 11 2.1 Introduction . 11 2.2 The Result . 13 2.3 Related Literature . 18 2.4 Conclusion . 21 2.5 Appendix A. Proofs . 21 2.6 Appendix B. Example . 25 3 The Hyperbolic Factor: a Measure of Decreasing Impatience 27 3.1 Introduction . 27 3.2 The Hyperbolic Factor De¯ned . 30 3.3 The Hyperbolic Factor and Discounted Utility . 32 3.3.1 Constant Discounting . 33 3.3.2 Generalized Hyperbolic Discounting . 33 3.3.3 Harvey Discounting . 34 i Contents 3.3.4 Proportional Discounting .
    [Show full text]
  • Intertemporal Consumption-Saving Problem in Discrete and Continuous Time
    Chapter 9 The intertemporal consumption-saving problem in discrete and continuous time In the next two chapters we shall discuss and apply the continuous-time version of the basic representative agent model, the Ramsey model. As a prepa- ration for this, the present chapter gives an account of the transition from discrete time to continuous time analysis and of the application of optimal control theory to set up and solve the household’s consumption/saving problem in continuous time. There are many fields in economics where a setup in continuous time is prefer- able to one in discrete time. One reason is that continuous time formulations expose the important distinction in dynamic theory between stock and flows in a much clearer way. A second reason is that continuous time opens up for appli- cation of the mathematical apparatus of differential equations; this apparatus is more powerful than the corresponding apparatus of difference equations. Simi- larly, optimal control theory is more developed and potent in its continuous time version than in its discrete time version, considered in Chapter 8. In addition, many formulas in continuous time are simpler than the corresponding ones in discrete time (cf. the growth formulas in Appendix A). As a vehicle for comparing continuous time modeling with discrete time mod- eling we consider a standard household consumption/saving problem. How does the household assess the choice between consumption today and consumption in the future? In contrast to the preceding chapters we allow for an arbitrary num- ber of periods within the time horizon of the household. The period length may thus be much shorter than in the previous models.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioural Economics Mark.Hurlstone @Uwa.Edu.Au Behavioural Economics Outline
    Behavioural Economics mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Behavioural Economics Outline Intertemporal Choice Exponential PSYC3310: Specialist Topics In Psychology Discounting Discount Factor Utility Streams Mark Hurlstone Delta Model Univeristy of Western Australia Implications Indifference Discount Rates Limitations Seminar 7: Intertemporal Choice Hyperbolic Discounting Beta-delta model CSIRO-UWA Behavioural Present-Bias Strengths & Economics Limitations BEL Laboratory [email protected] Behavioural Economics Today Behavioural Economics • mark.hurlstone Examine preferences (4), time (2), and utility @uwa.edu.au maximisation (1) in standard model) Outline (1) (2) (3) (4) Intertemporal Choice Exponential Discounting Discount Factor Utility Streams Delta Model Implications Indifference Discount Rates • Intertemporal choice—the exponential discounting Limitations model Hyperbolic Discounting • anomalies in the standard Model Beta-delta model Present-Bias • behavioural economic alternative—quasi-hyperbolic Strengths & Limitations discounting [email protected] Behavioural Economics Today Behavioural Economics • mark.hurlstone Examine preferences (4), time (2), and utility @uwa.edu.au maximisation (1) in standard model) Outline (1) (2) (3) (4) Intertemporal Choice Exponential Discounting Discount Factor Utility Streams Delta Model Implications Indifference Discount Rates • Intertemporal choice—the exponential discounting Limitations model Hyperbolic Discounting • anomalies in the standard Model Beta-delta model Present-Bias • behavioural
    [Show full text]
  • Intertemporal Choices with Temporal Preferences
    INTERTEMPORAL CHOICES WITH TEMPORAL PREFERENCES by Hyeon Sook Park B.A./M.A. in Economics, Seoul National University, 1992 M.A. in Economics, The University of Chicago, 1997 M.S. in Mathematics & C.S., Chicago State University, 2001 M.S. in Financial Mathematics, The University of Chicago, 2004 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich Arts and Sciences in partial ful…llment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2012 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Hyeon Sook Park It was defended on May 24, 2012 and approved by John Du¤y, Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh James Feigenbaum, Associate Professor of Economics,Utah State University Marla Ripoll, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh David DeJong, Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh Dissertation Director: John Du¤y, Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh ii INTERTEMPORAL CHOICES WITH TEMPORAL PREFERENCES Hyeon Sook Park, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2012 This dissertation explores the general equilibrium implications of inter-temporal decision- making from a behavioral perspective. The decision makers in my essays have psychology- driven, non-traditional preferences and they either have short term planning horizons, due to bounded rationality (Essay 1), or have present biased preferences (Essay 2) or their utilities depend not only on the periodic consumption but are also dependent upon their expectations about present and future optimal consumption (Essay 3). Finally, they get utilities from the act of caring for others through giving and volunteering (Essay 4). The decision makers who are de…ned by these preferences are re-optimizing over time if they realize that their past decisions for today are no longer optimal and this is the key mechanism that helps replicate the mean lifecycle consumption data which is known to be hump-shaped over the lifecycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour Market Effects of Unemployment Accounts: Insights from Behavioural Economics
    Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Utrecht School of Economics Utrecht University Janskerkhof 12 3512 BL Utrecht The Netherlands telephone +31 30 253 9800 fax +31 30 253 7373 website www.koopmansinstitute.uu.nl The Tjalling C. Koopmans Institute is the research institute and research school of Utrecht School of Economics. It was founded in 2003, and named after Professor Tjalling C. Koopmans, Dutch-born Nobel Prize laureate in economics of 1975. In the discussion papers series the Koopmans Institute publishes results of ongoing research for early dissemination of research results, and to enhance discussion with colleagues. Please send any comments and suggestions on the Koopmans institute, or this series to [email protected] çåíïÉêé=îççêÄä~ÇW=tofh=ríêÉÅÜí How to reach the authors Please direct all correspondence to the first author. Thomas van Huizen Janneke Plantenga Utrecht University Utrecht School of Economics Janskerkhof 12 3512 BL Utrecht The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] This paper can be downloaded at: http:// www.uu.nl/rebo/economie/discussionpapers Utrecht School of Economics Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series 11-07 Labour market effects of unemployment accounts: insights from behavioural economics Thomas van Huizen Janneke Plantenga Utrecht School of Economics Utrecht University March 2011 Abstract This paper reconsiders the behavioural effects of replacing the existing unemployment insurance system with unemployment accounts (UAs). Under this alternative system, workers are required to save a fraction of their wage in special accounts whereas the unemployed are allowed to withdraw savings from these accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • Intertemporal Choice and Inequality
    Intertemporal Choice and Inequality Angus Deaton and ChristinaPaxson Princeton University The permanent income hypothesis implies that, for any cohort of people born at the same time, inequality in both consumption and income should grow with age. We investigate this prediction using cohort data constructed from 11 years of household survey data from the United States, 22 years from Great Britain, and 14 years from Taiwan. The data show that within-cohort consumption and income inequality measures do indeed increase with age in the three economies and that the rate of increase is similar in all three. Ac- cording to the permanent income hypothesis, the increase in in- equality reflects cumulative differences in the effects of luck on con- sumption. Other models of intertemporal choice-such as those with strong precautionary motives or liquidity constraints-can limit or even prevent the spread of inequality, as can insurance arrange- ments that share risk across individuals. The evidence on the spread of inequality can therefore be used to help quantify the extent to which private and social arrangements moderate the impact of risk on the distribution of individual welfare. I. Introduction Suppose that the permanent income hypothesis (PIH) is true, so that the consumption of each person in the economy follows a random We are grateful to James Banks and Richard Blundell for the cohort data for Great Britain and to Orazio Attanasio for the U.S. data that were used in an earlier version of this paper. We also thank Tim Besley, Anne Case, Ben Eden, Steve Davis, Marjorie Flavin, Robert Hall, Alan Krueger, Robert Lucas, Thierry Magnac, Jean-Marc Robin, Joe Stiglitz, participants in the National Bureau of Economic Research's February 1993 Economic Fluctuations Research meeting, and an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Random Intertemporal Choice
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Journal of Economic Theory 177 (2018) 780–815 www.elsevier.com/locate/jet ✩ Random intertemporal choice ∗ Jay Lu a, , Kota Saito b a University of California, Los Angeles, United States b California Institute of Technology, United States Received 11 April 2017; final version received 27 May 2018; accepted 15 August 2018 Available online 17 August 2018 Abstract We provide a theory of random intertemporal choice. Agents exhibit stochastic choice over consump- tion due to preference shocks to discounting attitudes. We first demonstrate how the distribution of these preference shocks can be uniquely identified from random choice data. We then provide axiomatic char- acterizations of some common random discounting models, including exponential and quasi-hyperbolic discounting. In particular, we show how testing for exponential discounting under stochastic choice in- volves checking for both a stochastic version of stationarity and a novel axiom characterizing decreasing impatience. © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. JEL classification: D8; D9 Keywords: Stochastic choice; Intertemporal choice; Discounting; Stationarity 1. Introduction In many economic situations, it is useful to model intertemporal choices, i.e. decisions in- volving tradeoffs between earlier or later consumption, as stochastic or random. For instance, in typical models of random utility used in discrete choice estimation, this randomness is driven by ✩ We want to thank David Ahn, Jose Apesteguia, Miguel Ballester, Yoram Halevy, Yoichiro Higashi, Vijay Krishna, Tomasz Strzalecki, Charlie Sprenger and participants at D-Day at Duke, LA Theory Bash, UCSD, Barcelona GSE Stochastic Choice Workshop, D-TEA and the 16th SAET Conference at IMPA for their helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neurobiology of Intertemporal Choice: Insight from Imaging and Lesion Studies
    AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR Rev. Neurosci., Vol. 22(5): 565–574, 2011 • Copyright © by Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • Boston. DOI 10.1515/RNS.2011.046 The neurobiology of intertemporal choice: insight from imaging and lesion studies Manuela Sellitto 1,2 , Elisa Ciaramelli 1,2 and me to indulge in the present or postpone the gain ? In taking Giuseppe di Pellegrino 1,2, * into account what they prefer and how long they are willing to wait to obtain it, all intertemporal choices affect people ’ s 1 Dipartimento di Psicologia , Universit à di Bologna, 40127 health, wealth and mood (Frederick et al. , 2002 ). Bologna , Italy Humans and other animals ’ preferences for one option over 2 Centro studi e ricerche in Neuroscienze Cognitive , Polo another refl ect not just the amount of expected reward, but also Scientifi co-Didattico di Cesena, 47521 Cesena , Italy the time at which reward will be received. Economic models * Corresponding author usually explain this in terms of maximization of achieved util- e-mail: [email protected] ity (Kalenscher and Pennartz , 2008 ). In order to choose the most rewarding course of action, people consider the utility of the temporally proximal outcome against the utility they Abstract assign to a temporally distant outcome. To explore such an issue in the laboratory (both from an economic and psycho- People are frequently faced with intertemporal choices, i.e., logical point of view), these decisional situations are usually choices differing in the timing of their consequences, pre- recreated manipulating the amount of the offered rewards ferring smaller rewards available immediately over larger (e.g., money for humans), and the time at which these rewards rewards delivered after a delay.
    [Show full text]