Skip to main content

From Sunspots to Black Holes: Singular Dynamics in Macroeconomic Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Economic Theory ((ECON.THEORY,volume 31))

Abstract

We present conditions for the emergence of singularities in DGE models. We distinguish between slow-fast and impasse singularity types, review geometrical methods to deal with both types of singularity and apply them to DGE dynamics. We find that impasse singularities can generate new types of DGE dynamics, in particular temporary determinacy/indeterminacy. We illustrate the different nature of the two types of singularities and apply our results to two simple models: the Benhabib and Farmer (1994) model and one with a cyclical fiscal policy rule.

We acknowledge, without implicating, the useful comments by Alain Venditti, Nuno Barradas, and an anonymous referee. This work is part of UECE’s strategic project PEst-OE/EGE/UI0436/2014. UECE has financial support from national funds by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use the notation for derivatives \(f_{x}\equiv \frac{\partial y}{\partial x }\) and \(f_{xy}\equiv \frac{\partial ^{2}y}{\partial x\partial y}\).

  2. 2.

    For simplicity we exclude the existence of periodic solutions, but the analysis can easily be extended to that case.

  3. 3.

    Observe that we are now referring to a two-dimensional projection in (KL) of a three-dimensional system in (KLC).

  4. 4.

    See Kuehn (2015) for a recent textbook presentation.

  5. 5.

    Major references for continuous-time regular dynamics and bifurcations are Guckenheimer and Holmes (1990) or Kuznetsov (2005).

  6. 6.

    Recall we are assuming that \(\delta (K,L,\epsilon )\ne 0\).

  7. 7.

    A singular impasse point is a point in \(\mathcal {S}\) such that \(\nabla \delta = \mathbf 0 \).

  8. 8.

    Indeed, a one-dimensional manifold.

  9. 9.

    A zero-dimensional manifold.

  10. 10.

    For a proof, see Cardin et al. (2012) inter alia.

  11. 11.

    Benhabib and Farmer (1994, p. 34) already noted this behavior for particular values of the parameters: “As \(\chi \) moves below \(-0.015\) the roots both become real but remain negative until at (approximately) \(\chi =-0.05\) [i.e. \(\epsilon =0\)] one root passes through minus infinity and reemerges as a positive real root”. To compare with our results please note that we introduced a slight change in notation: while the authors set \(\chi \) as non-positive we set \(\chi \) as non-negative.

  12. 12.

    For another example in a macro model with imperfect competition see Brito et al. (2016).

  13. 13.

    Considering that we have an infinitely-lived representative household, it would act as if budget was balanced at all moments in time, i.e. Ricardian equivalence holds.

  14. 14.

    One special case is given by \(\phi =G\) and \(\mu =-1\), corresponding to setting the expenditure level.

  15. 15.

    We thank an anonymous referee and Nuno Barradas for suggesting this clarification.

References

  • Barnett, W. A., & He S. (2010). Existence of singularity bifurcation in an Euler-equations model of the United States economy: Grandmont was right. Economic Modelling, 27(6), 1345–1354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, J., & Farmer, R. (1994). Indeterminacy and increasing returns. Journal of Economic Theory, 63, 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brito, P., Costa, L., & Dixon, H. (2016). Singular macroeconomic dynamics and temporary indeterminacy. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardin, P. T., da Silva, P. R., & Teixeira, M. A. (2012). Implicit differential equations with impasse singularities and singular perturbation problems. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 189, 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cass, D., & Shell, K. (1983). Do sunspots matter? Journal of Political Economy, 91(2), 193–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenichel, N. (1979). Geometric singular perturbation theory for ordinary differential equations. Journal of Difference Equations and Applications, 31, 53–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandmont, J.-M. (1985). On endogenous competitive business cycles. Econometrica, 53, 995–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandmont, J. -M. (1998). Expectations formation and stability of large socioeconomic systems. Econometrica, 66(4), 741–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandmont, J. -M. (2008). Nonlinear difference equations, bifurcations and chaos: An introduction. Research in Economics, 62(3), 122–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandmont, J.-M., Pintus, P., & de Vilder, R. (1998). Capital-labor substitution and competitive nonlinear endogenous business cycles. Journal of Economic Theory, 80(1), 14–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guckenheimer, J., & Holmes, P. (1990). Nonlinear oscillations and bifurcations of vector fields (2nd ed.). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Y., & Barnett, W. A. (2006). Singularity bifurcations. Journal of Macroeconomics, 28, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehn, C. (2015). Multiple time scale dynamics (1st ed.). Applied Mathematical Sciences 191. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsov, Y. A. (2005). Elements of applied bifurcation theory (3rd ed.). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llibre, J., Sotomayor, J., & Zhitomirskii, M. (2002). Impasse bifurcations of constrained systems. Fields Institute Communications, 31, 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (2011). Rethinking macroeconomics: What failed, and how to repair it. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(4), 591–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhitomirskii, M. (1993). Local normal forms for constrained systems on 2-manifolds. Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Matemática, 24, 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo B. Brito .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

To simplify notation let \(x=(x_{1},x_{2})\equiv (K,L)\) and consider functions \(f_{1}(x)\), \(f_{2}(x)\), and \(\delta (x)\). In addition, consider the two vector fields F(x), as in Eq. (3.13), and \(F^{r}(x) \), as in Eq. (3.27). Then, at a regular steady-state (\(\bar{ x}\)), we have \(f_{1}(\bar{x})=f_{2}(\bar{x})=0\) and \(\delta (\bar{x})\ne 0\). Furthermore, at a generic impasse-transversal point (\(x^{i}\)), we have \( \delta (x^{i})=f_{2}(x^{i})=0\) and \(f_{1}(x^{i})\ne 0\).

Lemma 4

Assume there is one generic impasse-transversal point \(x^{i}\) and one regular steady-state \(\bar{x}\), both belonging to a set X, such that \(f_{2,x_{2}}(x)\) has the same sign for any point \(x\in X\). Therefore, \(\mathrm {sign}\left( \det DF^{r}(x^{i})\right) =-\mathrm {sign} \left( \det DF(\bar{x})\right) \).

Proof

For sake of simplicity, let us set \(\epsilon (\varphi ) = 1\). The determinants of the Jacobian for F(x) evaluated at the steady-state and \(F^{r}(x)\) at an impasse-transversal point are respectively given by

$$\begin{aligned} \det DF (\bar{x})= & {} \dfrac{f_{1,x_1} (\bar{x})\, f_{2,x_2} (\bar{x}) - f_{1,x_2} (\bar{x})\, f_{2,x_1} (\bar{x})}{\delta (\bar{x})}, \\ \det DF^r (x^i)= & {} f_1 (x^i) \left( \delta _{x_1} (x^i)\, f_{2,x_2} (x^i) - \delta _{x_2} (x^i)\, f_{2,x_1} (x^i) \right) . \end{aligned}$$

First, note that both points share a common condition \(f_2 (x_1, x_2) = 0\). If this function is differentiable, we can write \(\nabla f_2 (x) \cdot dx = 0\). By computing Taylor approximations to \(f_1 (x^i)\) in a neighbourhood of \(\bar{x}\) and to \(\delta (\bar{x})\) in a neighbourhood of \(x^i\), and considering the differentiability of \(f_2\left( \cdot \right) \), we obtain:

$$\begin{aligned} f_1 (x^i)= & {} \dfrac{ \det DF (\bar{x}) \delta (\bar{x} )}{f_{2,x_2} (\bar{x})} (x^i_1 - \bar{x}_1), \\ \delta (\bar{x})= & {} \dfrac{\det DF^r (x^i) }{f_1 (x^i) f_{2,x_2} (x^i)} (\bar{x}_1-x^i_1). \end{aligned}$$

Thus,

$$ \dfrac{\det DF^r (x^i) }{\det DF (\bar{x}) } = - (\delta (\bar{x}))^2 \dfrac{f_{2,x_2} (x^i)}{f_{2,x_2} (\bar{x})}. $$

\(\square \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brito, P.B., Costa, L.F., Dixon, H.D. (2017). From Sunspots to Black Holes: Singular Dynamics in Macroeconomic Models. In: Nishimura, K., Venditti, A., Yannelis, N. (eds) Sunspots and Non-Linear Dynamics. Studies in Economic Theory, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44076-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics