We need 5 things for a dynamic economic model
We need 5 things for a dynamic economic model
We need 5 things for a dynamic economic model
Controls: what variables are we optimizing, what decisions do the economic agents make?
States: What are the variables that change over time and interact with the controls?
We need 5 things for a dynamic economic model
Controls: what variables are we optimizing, what decisions do the economic agents make?
States: What are the variables that change over time and interact with the controls?
Payoff: What is the single-period payoff function? What's our reward?
We need 5 things for a dynamic economic model
Controls: what variables are we optimizing, what decisions do the economic agents make?
States: What are the variables that change over time and interact with the controls?
Payoff: What is the single-period payoff function? What's our reward?
Transition equations: How do the state variables evolve over time?
We need 5 things for a dynamic economic model
Controls: what variables are we optimizing, what decisions do the economic agents make?
States: What are the variables that change over time and interact with the controls?
Payoff: What is the single-period payoff function? What's our reward?
Transition equations: How do the state variables evolve over time?
Planning horizon: When does our problem terminate? Never? 100 years?
Dynamic problems can generally be solved in two ways
Dynamic problems can generally be solved in two ways
Open-loop: treat the model as a sequence of static optimization problems solved simultaneously
Dynamic problems can generally be solved in two ways
Open-loop: treat the model as a sequence of static optimization problems solved simultaneously
Feedback: treat the model as a single-period optimization problem with the immediate payoff and the continuation value
Feedback: treat the model as a single-period optimization problem with the immediate payoff and the continuation value
Dynamic models in economic models are typically Markovian
Dynamic models in economic models are typically Markovian
A stochastic process {xt} is said to have the Markov property if for all k≥1 and all t Prob(xt+1|xt,xt−1,...,xt−k)=Prob(xt+1|xt)
Dynamic models in economic models are typically Markovian
A stochastic process {xt} is said to have the Markov property if for all k≥1 and all t Prob(xt+1|xt,xt−1,...,xt−k)=Prob(xt+1|xt)
The distribution of the next vector in the sequence (i.e. the distribution of next period's state) is a function of only the current vector (state)
Dynamic models in economic models are typically Markovian
A stochastic process {xt} is said to have the Markov property if for all k≥1 and all t Prob(xt+1|xt,xt−1,...,xt−k)=Prob(xt+1|xt)
The distribution of the next vector in the sequence (i.e. the distribution of next period's state) is a function of only the current vector (state)
The Markov property is necessary for the feedback representation
We characterize stochastic state transitions with Markov chains
We characterize stochastic state transitions with Markov chains
A Markov chain is characterized by:
P is given by Pij=Prob(xt+1=ej|xt=ei)
P is given by Pij=Prob(xt+1=ej|xt=ei)
We need one assumption:
Nice property of Markov chains:
We can use P to determine the probability of moving to another state in two periods by P2 since
Prob(xt+2=ej|xt=ei)=n∑h=1Prob(xt+2=ej|xt+1=eh)Prob(xt+1=eh|xt=ei)=n∑h=1PihPhj=P2ij
Nice property of Markov chains:
We can use P to determine the probability of moving to another state in two periods by P2 since
Prob(xt+2=ej|xt=ei)=n∑h=1Prob(xt+2=ej|xt+1=eh)Prob(xt+1=eh|xt=ei)=n∑h=1PihPhj=P2ij
iterate on this to show that Prob(xt+k=ej|xt=ei)=Pkij
Start with a general sequential problem to set up the basic recursive/feedback dynamic optimization problem
Start with a general sequential problem to set up the basic recursive/feedback dynamic optimization problem
Let β∈(0,1), the economic agent selects a sequence of controls, {ut}∞t=0 to maximize ∞∑t=0βtr(xt,ut) subject to xt+1=g(xt,ut) and with x0 given
Assume r is concave, continuously differentiable, and the state space is convex and compact
Assume r is concave, continuously differentiable, and the state space is convex and compact
We want to recover a policy function h which maps the current state xt into the current control ut, such that the sequence {us}∞s=0 generated by iterating ut=h(xt)xt+1=g(xt,ut), starting from x0, solves our original optimization problem
Consider a function V(x), the continuation value function where V(x0)=max subject to the transition equation: x_{t+1} = g(x_t,u_t)
The value function defines the maximum value of our original problem as a function of the state
Suppose we know V(x), then we can solve for the policy function h by solving for each x \in X \max_u r(x,u) + \beta V(x') where x' = g(x,u) and primes on state variables indicate next period
Suppose we know V(x), then we can solve for the policy function h by solving for each x \in X \max_u r(x,u) + \beta V(x') where x' = g(x,u) and primes on state variables indicate next period
Conditional on having V(x) we can solve our dynamic programming problem
Suppose we know V(x), then we can solve for the policy function h by solving for each x \in X \max_u r(x,u) + \beta V(x') where x' = g(x,u) and primes on state variables indicate next period
Conditional on having V(x) we can solve our dynamic programming problem
Instead of solving for an infinite dimensional set of policies, we instead find the V(x) and h that solves the continuum maximization problems, where there is a unique maximization problem for each x
Suppose we know V(x), then we can solve for the policy function h by solving for each x \in X \max_u r(x,u) + \beta V(x') where x' = g(x,u) and primes on state variables indicate next period
Conditional on having V(x) we can solve our dynamic programming problem
Instead of solving for an infinite dimensional set of policies, we instead find the V(x) and h that solves the continuum maximization problems, where there is a unique maximization problem for each x
This is often easier
Issue: How do we know V(x) when it depends on future (optimized) actions?
Issue: How do we know V(x) when it depends on future (optimized) actions?
Define the Bellman equation V(x) = \max_u r(x,u) + \beta V[g(x,u)]
Issue: How do we know V(x) when it depends on future (optimized) actions?
Define the Bellman equation V(x) = \max_u r(x,u) + \beta V[g(x,u)]
h(x) maximizes the right hand side of the Bellman
The policy function satisfies V(x) = r[x,h(x)] + \beta V\{g[x,h(x)]\}
The policy function satisfies V(x) = r[x,h(x)] + \beta V\{g[x,h(x)]\}
Solving the problem yields a solution that is a function, V(x)
The policy function satisfies V(x) = r[x,h(x)] + \beta V\{g[x,h(x)]\}
Solving the problem yields a solution that is a function, V(x)
This is a recursive problem since it maps itself into a scalar value, can be hard to think about at first
The policy function satisfies V(x) = r[x,h(x)] + \beta V\{g[x,h(x)]\}
Solving the problem yields a solution that is a function, V(x)
This is a recursive problem since it maps itself into a scalar value, can be hard to think about at first
One of the workhorse solution methods exploits this recursion and
contraction mapping properties of the Bellman operator to solve for V(x)
Under standard assuptions we have that
Euler equations are dynamic efficiency conditions: they equalize the marginal effects of an optimal policy over time
E.g: set the current marginal benefit, energy from burning fossil fuels, with the future marginal cost, global warming
Euler equations are dynamic efficiency conditions: they equalize the marginal effects of an optimal policy over time
E.g: set the current marginal benefit, energy from burning fossil fuels, with the future marginal cost, global warming
The Bellman equation is \begin{align} V(K_t) &= \max_{I_t} \left\{ u(K_t) - c(I_t) + \beta V(K_{t+1}) \right\} \notag \\ &\text{subject to: } \,\,\,\, K_{t+1} = (1 - \delta) K_t + \gamma I \notag \end{align}
The Bellman equation is \begin{align} V(K_t) &= \max_{I_t} \left\{ u(K_t) - c(I_t) + \beta V(K_{t+1}) \right\} \notag \\ &\text{subject to: } \,\,\,\, K_{t+1} = (1 - \delta) K_t + \gamma I \notag \end{align}
The FOC with respect to investment is c_I(I_t) = \beta \, \gamma \, V_K(K_{t+1})
The Bellman equation is \begin{align} V(K_t) &= \max_{I_t} \left\{ u(K_t) - c(I_t) + \beta V(K_{t+1}) \right\} \notag \\ &\text{subject to: } \,\,\,\, K_{t+1} = (1 - \delta) K_t + \gamma I \notag \end{align}
The FOC with respect to investment is c_I(I_t) = \beta \, \gamma \, V_K(K_{t+1})
Envelope theorem gives us V_K(K_t) = u_K(K_t) + \beta \, \delta \, V_K(K_{t+1})
The FOC with respect to investment is c_I(I_t) = \beta \, \gamma \, V_K(K_{t+1})
Envelope theorem gives us V_K(K_t) = u_K(K_t) + \beta \, \delta \, V_K(K_{t+1})
The FOC with respect to investment is c_I(I_t) = \beta \, \gamma \, V_K(K_{t+1})
Envelope theorem gives us V_K(K_t) = u_K(K_t) + \beta \, \delta \, V_K(K_{t+1})
Advance both by one period since they must hold for all t
\begin{gather} c_I(I_{t+1}) = \beta \, \gamma \, V_K(K_{t+2}) \notag\\ V_K(K_{t+1}) = u_K(K_{t+1}) + \beta \, \delta \, V_K(K_{t+2}) \notag \end{gather}
Substitute the time t and time t+1 FOCs into our time t+1 envelope condition \frac{c'(I_t)}{\beta \, \gamma} = u'(K_{t+1}) + \beta \, \delta \frac{c'(I_{t+1})}{\beta \, \gamma} \Rightarrow c'(I_t) = \beta \left[ \gamma \, u'(K_{t+1}) + \delta \, c'(I_{t+1}) \right]
Substitute the time t and time t+1 FOCs into our time t+1 envelope condition \frac{c'(I_t)}{\beta \, \gamma} = u'(K_{t+1}) + \beta \, \delta \frac{c'(I_{t+1})}{\beta \, \gamma} \Rightarrow c'(I_t) = \beta \left[ \gamma \, u'(K_{t+1}) + \delta \, c'(I_{t+1}) \right]
LHS is marginal cost of investment, RHS is marginal benefit of investment along an optimal path
\Rightarrow c'(I_t) = \beta \left[ \gamma \, u'(K_{t+1}) + \delta \, c'(I_{t+1}) \right]
LHS: marginal cost of investment
RHS: marginal benefit of higher utility from more future output, and lower future investment cost because of higher capital stock
Euler equations are no-arbitrage conditions
Suppose we're on the optimal capital path and want to deviate by cutting back investment
Euler equations are no-arbitrage conditions
Suppose we're on the optimal capital path and want to deviate by cutting back investment
Yields a marginal benefit today of saving us some investment cost
Euler equations are no-arbitrage conditions
Suppose we're on the optimal capital path and want to deviate by cutting back investment
Yields a marginal benefit today of saving us some investment cost
There are two costs associated with it:
Euler equations are no-arbitrage conditions
Suppose we're on the optimal capital path and want to deviate by cutting back investment
Yields a marginal benefit today of saving us some investment cost
There are two costs associated with it:
Lower utility tomorrow because we will have a smaller capital stock
Greater investment cost tomorrow to return to the optimal capital trajectory
If this deviation (or deviating by investing more today) were profitable, we would do it
\rightarrow the optimal policy must have zero additional profit opportunities: this is what the Euler equation defines
Here we finish up the basic theory pieces we need
We will focus on deterministic problems but this easily ports to stochastic problems
Here we finish up the basic theory pieces we need
We will focus on deterministic problems but this easily ports to stochastic problems
Consider an infinite horizon problem for an economic agent
Here the current state vector completely summarizes all the information of the past and is all the information the agent needs to make a forward-looking decision
\rightarrow our problem has the Markov property
Here the current state vector completely summarizes all the information of the past and is all the information the agent needs to make a forward-looking decision
\rightarrow our problem has the Markov property
Final two pieces
Discounting and bounded payoffs ensures total value is bounded
Represent this payoff as \sum_{t=0}^\infty \beta^t r(s_t,u_t)
Represent this payoff as \sum_{t=0}^\infty \beta^t r(s_t,u_t)
The value of the maximized discounted stream of payoffs is \begin{gather} V(s_0) = \max_{u_0 \in U(s_0)} r(s_t,u_t) + \beta \left[\max_{\{u_t\}_{t=1}^\infty} \sum_{t=t}^\infty \beta^t r(s_t,u_t)\right] \notag \\ \text{subject to: } s_{t+1} = g(s_t,u_t) \notag \end{gather}
Represent this payoff as \sum_{t=0}^\infty \beta^t r(s_t,u_t)
The value of the maximized discounted stream of payoffs is \begin{gather} V(s_0) = \max_{u_0 \in U(s_0)} r(s_t,u_t) + \beta \left[\max_{\{u_t\}_{t=1}^\infty} \sum_{t=t}^\infty \beta^t r(s_t,u_t)\right] \notag \\ \text{subject to: } s_{t+1} = g(s_t,u_t) \notag \end{gather}
the terms inside the square brackets is the maximized discounted stream of payoffs beginning at state s_1
This means the problem can be written recursively as \begin{gather} V(s_0) = \max_{u_0 \in U(s_0)} r(s_t,u_t) + \beta\,V(s_1) \\ \text{subject to: } s_{t+1} = g(s_t,u_t) \end{gather}
which is our Bellman (we just exploited Bellman's principle of optimality)
Reformulate the problem as, V(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,V(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S where \Gamma(s) is our set of feasible states next period
Reformulate the problem as, V(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,V(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S where \Gamma(s) is our set of feasible states next period
There exists a solution to the Bellman under a (particular) set of sufficient conditions:
Reformulate the problem as, V(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,V(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S where \Gamma(s) is our set of feasible states next period
There exists a solution to the Bellman under a (particular) set of sufficient conditions:
If the following are true
Reformulate the problem as, V(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,V(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S where \Gamma(s) is our set of feasible states next period
There exists a solution to the Bellman under a (particular) set of sufficient conditions:
If the following are true
Reformulate the problem as, V(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,V(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S where \Gamma(s) is our set of feasible states next period
There exists a solution to the Bellman under a (particular) set of sufficient conditions:
If the following are true
then there exists a unique value function V(s) that solves the Bellman equation
Define an operator T as T(W)(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,W(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S
Define an operator T as T(W)(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,W(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S
This operator takes some value function W(s), maximizes it, and returns another T(W)(s)
Define an operator T as T(W)(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,W(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S
This operator takes some value function W(s), maximizes it, and returns another T(W)(s)
It is easy to see that any V(s) that satisfies V(s) = T(V)(s) \,\,\, \forall s \in S solves the Bellman equation
Define an operator T as T(W)(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,W(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S
This operator takes some value function W(s), maximizes it, and returns another T(W)(s)
It is easy to see that any V(s) that satisfies V(s) = T(V)(s) \,\,\, \forall s \in S solves the Bellman equation
Therefore we simply search for the fixed point of T(W) to solve our dynamic problem, but how do we find the fixed point?
Define an operator T as T(W)(s) = \max_{s' \in \Gamma(s)} r(s,s') + \beta\,W(s'), \,\,\, \forall s \in S
This operator takes some value function W(s), maximizes it, and returns another T(W)(s)
It is easy to see that any V(s) that satisfies V(s) = T(V)(s) \,\,\, \forall s \in S solves the Bellman equation
Therefore we simply search for the fixed point of T(W) to solve our dynamic problem, but how do we find the fixed point?
First we must show that a way exists by showing that T(W) is a contraction:
as we iterate using the T operator, we will get closer and closer to the fixed point
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Monotonicity holds under our maximization
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Monotonicity holds under our maximization
Discounting reflects that we must be discounting the future
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Monotonicity holds under our maximization
Discounting reflects that we must be discounting the future
If these two conditions hold then we have a contraction with modulus \beta
Blackwell's sufficient conditions for a contraction are
Monotonicity holds under our maximization
Discounting reflects that we must be discounting the future
If these two conditions hold then we have a contraction with modulus \beta
Why do we care this is a contraction?
So we can take advantage of the contraction mapping theorem which states:
So we can take advantage of the contraction mapping theorem which states:
Keyboard shortcuts
↑, ←, Pg Up, k | Go to previous slide |
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j | Go to next slide |
Home | Go to first slide |
End | Go to last slide |
Number + Return | Go to specific slide |
b / m / f | Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode |
c | Clone slideshow |
p | Toggle presenter mode |
t | Restart the presentation timer |
?, h | Toggle this help |
Esc | Back to slideshow |