Abstract
This paper proposes and compares in terms of speed and accuracy two alternative approximation methods employing finite elements to parameterize the true policy functions that solve for the equilibrium of an optimal growth model with leisure and irreversible investment. The occasionally binding constraint in investment is efficiently handled on one algorithm by parameterizing the expectations of the marginal benefit of future physical capital stock and on the other by modifying the planner’s problem to include a penalty function. While both methods benefit from the high speed and accuracy achieved by a finite elements approximation, the algorithm incorporating a penalty function in the planner’s problem proved being of fastest convergence over a whole range of the model’s calibrations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiyagari R. (1994) Uninsured idiosyncratic risk and aggregate saving. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(3): 659–684
Aruoba S., Rubio J., Fernandez-Villaverde J. (2006) Comparing solution methods for dynamic equilibrium economies. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30: 2477–2508
Christiano L., Fisher J. (2000) Algorithms for solving dynamic models with occasionally binding constraints. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24: 1179–1232
Collard F., Juillard M. (2001) Accuracy of stochastic perturbation methods: the case of asset pricing models. Journal of Economic Dynamics And Control 25(6): 979–999
Den Haan W. J., Marcet A. (1994) Accuracy in simulations. Review of Economic Studies 61: 3–17
Fletcher R. (1987) Practical methods of optimization. Wiley, Chichester
Hansen G. (1985) Indivisible labor and the business cycle. Journal of Monetary Economics 16: 309–325
Hodrick R., Kocherlakota N., Lucas D. (1991) The variability of velocity in cash-in-advance models. Journal of Political Economics 99: 358–384
Hughes T. R. J. (2000) The finite element method, linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Dover Publications, New York
Huggett M. (1993) The risk-free rate in heterogeneous agent incomplete insurance economies. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 17: 953–969
Judd K.L. (1992) Projection methods for solving aggregate growth models. Journal of Economic Theory 58: 410–452
Judd K. L. (1998) Numerical methods in economics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Judd K. L., Guu S. M. (1997) Asymptotic methods for aggregate growth models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 21: 1025–1042
McGrattan E. (1996) Solving the stochastic growth model with a finite element method. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 20: 19–42
McGrattan E. (1999) Application of weighted residual methods to dynamic economic models. In: Marimon R., Scott A. (eds) Computational methods for the study of dynamic economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Taylor J.B., Uhlig H. (1990) Solving nonlinear stochastic growth models: A comparison of alternative solution methods. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 8: 1–17
Wen Y. (2005) Understanding the inventory cycle. Journal of Monetary Economics 52: 1533–1555
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cao-Alvira, J.J. Finite Elements in the Presence of Occasionally Binding Constraints. Comput Econ 35, 355–370 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-010-9203-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-010-9203-5