# Toshihiko Mukoyama University of tm5hs/ Toshihiko Mukoyama University of Virginia

date post

23-Aug-2018Category

## Documents

view

212download

0

Embed Size (px)

### Transcript of Toshihiko Mukoyama University of tm5hs/ Toshihiko Mukoyama University of Virginia

Macroeconomic Models of Heterogeneous Agents

Toshihiko MukoyamaUniversity of Virginia

February 2008, Bank of Japan lectures

Introduction to overall lecture

The myth of macroeconomics is that relations among aggregatesare enlarged analogues of relations among corresponding variablesfor individual households, firms, industries, and markets. The mythis a harmless and useful simplification in many contexts, butsometimes it misses the essence of the phenomenon. (Tobin,1972as cited in Iwai, 1981)

Two reasons that heterogeneity can be important. Simple aggregation bias. Heterogeneity in decisions and its impact on aggregates.

Here, we emphasize the second aspect.

I: Incomplete market models

Why do I (personally) like incomplete market models?

Realistic; Arrow-Debreu security markets dont exist in reality.

Consistent with microeconomic models of consumption andsaving. (Permanent income hypothesis.)

Endogenous determination of wealth (and consumption)inequality.

Can analyze the (heterogeneous) insurance aspect ofmacroeconomic policies.

A digression: on inequality

Three types of inequalities: Wealth inequality, Income inequality, Earnings inequality.

These inequalities have to be distinguished. Gini coefficients are 0.78 (top 5% owns half, top 30% owns

90%), 0.57, and 0.63, respectively, in the U.S. (Daz-Gimenez,Quadrini, and Ros-Rull 1997)

They are not perfectly correlated. In particular, one has to becareful about the life-cycle effect.

In Japan, both wealth and income inequalities are muchsmaller than U.S. (0.56 and 0.30).

What we care, in principle, is consumption (and leisure)inequalitydifficult to measure.

Complete market models

Arrow-Debreu security for each state.

Implications with CRRA utility:

cit(st)

Ct(st)=

cit(st)

Ct(st).

No mobility in consumptioneveryone is insured similarly. No mobility in wealth (initial wealth distribution remains

forever). cit is the linear function of the wealth level at time t. The

slope of this function is common across people, while theintercept can be different.

Wealth distribution has no impact on aggregate dynamics(Gorman aggregation).

A wealth-neutral policy (Wi0/Wi0 = Wj0/Wj0) has the sameimpact on everyones welfare.

(A bit of) history of Bewley models

Earlier models (Bewley) Imrohoroglu (1989 JPE ) storage economy.

General equilibrium models Huggett (1993 JEDC ) endowment economy with bond. Aiyagari (1994 QJE ) neoclassical production with capital. Krusell and Smith (1998 JPE ) with aggregate shocks.

Survey: Krusell and Smith (2006, world congress volume)

Basic structure Consumers face idiosyncratic shocks, butcannot write insurance contracts for these shocks. Instead,they can accumulate one type of asset (money in Bewley,Imrohoroglu; bond in Huggett; Capital in Aiyagari andKrusell-Smith). They also face a borrowing constraint.

Applications of Krusell-Smith computational method Similar contexts:

Cost of business cycles: Krusell and Smith (1999 RED, 2002),Storesletten, Telmer, and Yaron (2001 EER), Mukoyama andSahin (2006, JME )

Asset pricing: Krusell and Smith (1997 MD), etc. Foreign exchange risk premium: Leduc (2002, JIMF ) Labor supply: Chang and Kim (2006 IER, 2007 AER) Default: Nakajima and Ros-Rull (2005) Tax reform: Nishiyama and Smetters (2005 JPE )

Different contexts: Monetary policy: Cooley and Quadrini (2006 ET ) State-dependent pricing: Golosov and Lucas (2007 JPE,

somewhat related) (S , s)-investment: Khan and Thomas (2007) Structural estimation: Lee and Wolpin (2006, Econometrica),

Weintraub, Benkard, and Van Roy (2007, somewhat related) Some other topics

Housing market. (Chambers, Garriga, and Schlagenhauf) International risk sharing (and crises). (Castro 2005) Money/nominal asset holding. (Doepke and Schneider 2006)

A digression: Is it a good thing to be able to solve a

heterogeneous-agent model for a monetary policy analysis?

Various applications are possible. State-dependent pricing model with idiosyncratic shocks.

(Golosov-Lucas) Inventory holding, customer market, and micro-founded model

of sales. Heterogeneous information, heterogeneous expectation,

experimentation.

Models with nominal and real assets. (Portfolio choice?) Monetary policy affects the financial conditions of firms via

liquidity effect. Financial constraints are more important forsmall firms. (Cooley-Quadrini)

Even if we limit attention to cash... Cash holding behavior as (S , s)-behavior. (Baumol-Tobin) Transaction demand for cashrandomness leads to

heterogeneous cash holding. (Kiyotaki-Wright)

Krusell-Smith model: Setup

Consumers:

max E0

[

t=0

t log(ct)

]

subject to

at+1 = (1 + rt )at + wtt + h(1 t) ct

andat+1 a.

There is only one kind of asset a: capital stock.

Firms:max ztK

t L

1t rtKt wtLt

rt = zt(Kt/Lt)1 and wt = (1 )zt(Kt/Lt)

.

Krusell-Smith model: Exogenous variables

The aggregate state zt {g , b} evolves according to theprobabilities zz .

The idiosyncratic state t {0, 1} evolves according to theconditional probabilities |zz .

To make the aggregate employment Lt =

itdi as just afunction of zt (i.e. two points), the following is satisfied:

Lz1|1zz + (1 Lz)1|0zz = Lz ,

for all (z, z ).

Krusell-Smith model: Market equilibrium

Kt =

atdt(at , t)

Lt =

tdt(at , t).

Krusell-Smith model: Recursive competitive equilibrium

Thinking recursively

All the decisions are functions of the current state variables.

All the prices are functions of the current state variables.

All the next-period state variables are functions (which can bestochastic) of the current state variables.

The last two include equilibrium objectsindividuals take thesefunctions as given. Lets start from the individual decision problem.

Krusell-Smith model: Individual Markov decision

What are the state variables? Clearly, at and t matter for the consumption/saving decision.

What else? One would want to know the return from saving: rt+1. Also

the future income mattersso, wt+1, wt+2, ..., rt+1, rt+2, ...have to be predicted. Also t+1, t+2, ... should be predicted.

Thats enough to make decisions in a competitive market (allthe prices and income). So, how do we predict future prices?

The future prices are influenced by future z s and Lz s. Futures are influenced by future z s. zt has to be a state variable.

Also future K s influence the future prices. Kt+1 is influencedby everyones decision of at+1, which is influenced by eachpersons state variables, which contain (at , t). Therefore, it isnecessary that the distribution of these individual statevariables t is a state variable.

Thus, at least, (at , t , zt , t) are state variables. Are they sufficient? Yes.

Krusell-Smith model: Individual Markov decision

Bellman equation:

v(a, , z ,) = maxc,a

log(c) + E [v(a, , z ,)|, z ]

subject to

a = (1 + r(K , z) )a + w(K , z)+ h(1 ) c ,

a a,

and = H(, z , z ).

Here, H is the law of motion for .

Krusell-Smith model: Recursive competitive equilibrium

Consumers optimize.

Firms optimize.

Markets clear:

Kt =

atdt(at , t)

Lt =

tdt(at , t).

Consistency: is generated by a(a, , z, ) and with and z .

Krusell-Smith model: Computation

Main issues: What do we do with the state variable ? What do we do with the law of motion H?

Krusell and Smiths solution: Instead of considering the entire distribution, consider a limited

set of moments. Consider a simple forecasting rule.

In particular, consider only the first moment K and the simplelinear rule:

log(K ) =

{

a0 + b0 log(K ) if z = g ,a1 + b1 log(K ) if z = b.

Krusell-Smith model: Computation

These consumers are boundedly rational in the sense that they do not fully utilize the information of , and they limit themselves to the simple linear forecasting rule.

However, if it turns out that this simple forecasting ruleactually predict K , these consumers are actually fully rational,because

the other information actually is not necessary for forecasting,and

the actual process follows the simple linear law of motion.

Therefore, the resulting equilibrium is a rational expectationsequilibrium.

It turns out, in this class of models, that the prediction withthis forecasting rule is very accurate: approximateaggregation.

Krusell-Smith model: Computation1. Guess the law of motion for K :

log(K ) =

{

a0 + b0 log(K ) if z = g ,a1 + b1 log(K ) if z = b.

2. Solve the individual optimization problem:

v(a, , z ,K ) = maxc,a

log(c) + E [v(a, , z ,K )|, z ]

subject to

a = (1 + r(K , z) )a + w(K , z)+ h(1 ) c ,

a a,

and the law of motion given above. (r and w are the MPs.)3. Simulate the economy, using the policy functions obtained

from the optimization. Obtain the simulated time series of Kand z .

4. Compare the time series with the law of motion we guessedfirst. If the time series satisfy the law of motion, we found theREE. If not, revise the law of motion and repeat.

Krusell-Smith model: Computation

More in detail:

The initial guess of the law of motion is important. (Inpractice, one can obtain a good guess fr

*View more*