Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Mortality, Family and Lifestyles

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Family and Economic Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While there is a large empirical literature on the intergenerational transmission of health and survival outcomes in relation to lifestyles, little theoretical work exists on the long-run prevalence of (un)healthy lifestyles induced by mortality patterns. To examine that issue, this paper develops an overlapping generations model where a healthy lifestyle and an unhealthy lifestyle are transmitted vertically or obliquely across generations. It is shown that there must exist a locally stable heterogeneous equilibrium involving a majority of healthy agents, as a result of the larger parental gains from socialization efforts under a higher life expectancy. We also examine the robustness of our results to the introduction of parental altruistic concerns for children’s health and of asymmetric socialization costs.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ahlburg regards this intergenerational correlation of health as a major determinant, jointly with the correlation of familial education levels, of intergenerational correlations of income.

  2. See Currie and Moretti (2005) on the intergenerational transmission of birth weight, and Kebede (2003) on the transmission of height.

  3. Actually, as shown by Christensen et al. (2006), the identification of the genetic and non-genetic determinants of longevity is a real challenge, since this presupposes the absence of unobserved heterogeneity. However, many genetic and non-genetic longevity factors are not reported in the data, simply because these are not yet known to be important.

  4. Those results are confirmed by Herskind et al.’s (1996) study of Danish twins.

  5. However, it should be stressed that lifestyles are not the only determinants of longevity: there are also genetic factors (Christensen et al. 2006), and environmental ones (Kinney and Oskanyak 1991), both of these being not related at all with lifestyles.

  6. On those various behavioural determinants of longevity, see Doll and Hill (1950), Kaplan et al. (1987), Peto et al. (1992), Solomon and Manson (1997), and Bender et al. (1998).

  7. The impact of the socio-economic status on smoking is confirmed by Chen et al. (2007).

  8. Among other factors, the financial conditions in which agents are seem to be related with their unhealthy lifestyles. As shown by Grafova (2007), there is a correlation between holding a non-collateralized debt (NCD) and smoking.

  9. At this stage, it should be noted that it is extremely difficult to provide clear empirical evidence supporting one type of socialization process or another: only intergenerational correlations can be observed (see Sect. 1), and these may hide various, complex mechanisms, which are more or less voluntary. The Bisin-Verdier modelling captures some important aspects of the socialization process, but could hardly account for all of them. That model allows for some form of voluntary socialization, through the choice of socialization efforts by parents, but, at the same time, there can also be an oblique socialization via a role model, which is, by nature, not voluntary (since the role model does nothing to be imitated).

  10. Thus, one should be cautious before rejecting the idea that unhealthy parents invest in the promotion of the unhealthy lifestyle. For type-U parents, the unhealthy lifestyle is, above all, their lifestyle, i.e. the one they adopted themselves.

  11. It should be stressed, however, that this transmission technology is far from neutral for the long-run dynamics of lifestyles transmission. See Bisin and Verdier (2001) on the study of various transmission technologies.

  12. Agents are here good at anticipating their life expectancy, in conformity with Hamermesh (1985).

  13. To have \(0<e_{t}^{i}\,\leq\, 1\), we impose: \(\frac{\beta \pi ^{i}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }\,\leq\, 1.\)

  14. Note that this property follows from the particular transmission technology (and cost functions) assumed, but would not necessarily prevail under other technologies (see Bisin and Verdier 2001). The cultural substitution property is also far from neutral for long-run dynamics of cultural transmission. Under transmission technologies allowing for cultural complementarity, there could exist stable equilibria without heterogeneity, unlike here.

  15. Figure 1 relies on the following parameters values: \({\beta}=0.6\); \(\delta =0.5\); \(\hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}=1.5\); \({\pi}^{H}=0.5\) and \(\pi ^{U}=0.3. \)

  16. Given that \(q^{2}=\frac{\pi ^{H}}{\pi ^{H}+\pi ^{U}},\) the long-run aggregate life expectancy \({\Uplambda}\) is \(2+\frac{\left( \pi ^{H}\right) ^{2}+\left( \pi ^{U}\right) ^{2}}{\pi ^{H}+\pi ^{U}}\). Hence the impact of a marginal rise in \({\pi}^{U}\) is: \(\frac{\partial \Lambda } {\partial \pi ^{U}}=\frac{2\pi ^{H}\pi ^{U}-\left( \pi ^{H}\right) ^{2}+\left( \pi ^{U}\right) ^{2}}{\left( \pi ^{H}+\pi ^{U}\right) ^{2}}\). Hence this is negative if and only if \(\left( \pi ^{U}\right) ^{2}<\left( \pi ^{H}\right) ^{2}-2\pi ^{H}\pi ^{U}\).

  17. See Ponthiere (2007) on empirical studies estimating intrafamily altruistic weights.

  18. Nonetheless, the time structure of this model is such that the parental concern for the child’s life expectancy cannot be caused by selfish coexistence concerns, as the survival of children concerns the old age, at which their parents are necessarily dead.

  19. Hence, to have \(e_{t}^{i}\,\leq\, 1\), we can now impose \(\frac{\beta \pi ^{i}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{i}-\pi ^{j}\right) }{\delta }\,\leq\, 1\).

  20. This is so because a positive constant is added to the numerator of the intermediate equilibria under the basic model.

  21. Figure 2 relies on the following parameters values: \({\alpha}=0.2\); \({\beta}=0.6\); \({\delta}=0.5\); \(\hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}=1.5\); \({\pi}^{H}=0.5\) and \(\pi ^{U}=0.3.\) Figure 3 relies on the parameters: \({\alpha}=0.4\); \(\beta =0.6\); \({\delta}=0.5\); \(\hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}=0.5\); \(\pi ^{H}=0.8\) and \({\pi}^{U}=0.3.\)

  22. In some sense, for those lifestyles, the altruistic concern will overcome the will to have children like oneself.

  23. To have \(e_{t}^{i}\,\leq\, 1\), we now impose \(\frac{\beta \pi ^{i}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{i}-\pi ^{j}\right) }{\delta ^{i}}\,\leq\, 1\).

  24. The postulated form of concern for the child’s health can be, in principle, regarded as egoistic. However, given that it cannot be driven by coexistence (as parents are dead at the old age, whatever their children are long-lived or not), it is more plausible to regard that concern as altruistic.

  25. On the effectiveness of public health programs (and its measurement of spillovers arising from these), see Chaudhuri (2009).

  26. Indeed, teachers could, by supporting the healthy parents’ arguments, make the transmission of the healthy lifestyle easier. Note, however, that this effect is far from certain, as teaching programs may, if inadequate, be counterproductive, especially with teenagers.

  27. See Ponthiere (2010) for a study of that issue in the case of a particular longevity-affecting lifestyle: the working time. The optimal policy is shown there to depend on individuals’ myopia, and on intergenerational externalities due to the transmission of lifestyles.

  28. The family plays also a major role regarding food (in)security, as studied in Coleman-Jensen (2010) and Guo (2010).

References

  • Ahlburg, D. (1998). Intergenerational transmission of health. American Economic Review, 88(2), 265–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balia, S., & Jones, A. (2008). Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status. Journal of Health Economics, 27(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baudin, T. (2010). A role for cultural transmission in fertility transitions. Macroeconomic Dynamics, forthcoming.

  • Bender, J., Trautner, C., Spraul, M., & Berger, M. (1998). Assessment of excess mortality in obesity. American Journal of Epidemiology, 147(1), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisin, A., & Verdier, T. (2000). Beyond the melting pot: Cultural transmission, marriage and the evolution of ethnic and religious traits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 955–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisin, A., & Verdier, T. (2001). The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 97, 298–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisin, A., Topa, G., & Verdier, T. (2004). Religious intermarriage and socialization in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 615–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, A., Lubotsky, D., & Paxson, C. (2002). Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1308–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, A. (2009). Spillover impacts of a reproductive health program on elderly women in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Yen, S. T., & Eastwood, D. B. (2007). Does smoking have a causal effect on weight reduction?. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, K., Johnson, T., & Vaupel, J. (2006). The quest for genetic determinants of human longevity: Challenges and insights. Nature Reviews—Genetics, 7, 436–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman-Jensen, A. (2010). Working for peanuts: Nonstandard work and food insecurity across household structure. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. doi:10-1007/s10834-010-9190-7.

  • Coneus, K., & Spieb, K. (2008). The intergenerational transmission of health in early childhood. SOEP papers no. 126.

  • Contoyannis, P., & Jones, A. (2004). Socio-economic status, health and lifestyle. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 965–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, J., & Moretti, E. (2005). Biology as destiny? Short-run and long-run determinants of intergenerational transmission of birth weight. NBER working papers no. 11567.

  • Doll, R., & Hill, B. (1950). Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. British Medical Journal, 2, 739–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, A., Mavromaras, K., & Smith, M. (2008). Intergenerational transmission of healthy eating behaviour and the role of household income. IZA discussion paper no. 3535.

  • Grafova, I. (2007). Your money or your life: Managing health, managing money. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, B. (2010). Household assets and food security: Evidence from the survey of program dynamics. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. doi:10.1007/s10834-010-9194-3.

  • Hamermersh, D. (1985). Expectations, life expectancy, and economic behaviour. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(2), 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersch, J. (2000). Gender, income level, and the demand for cigarettes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21(2–3), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herskind, A. M. et al. (1996). The heritability of human longevity: A population-based study of 2872 Danish twin pairs born 1870–1900. Human Genetics, 97, 319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, V. (2010). Workers’ behavior and labor contracts: An evolutionary approach. Metroeconomica, 61(1), 152–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (1994). Health, addiction, social interaction and the decision to quit smoking. Journal of Health Economics, 13(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, G. A, Seeman, T. E., Cohen, R. D., Knudsen, L. P., & Guralnik, J. (1987). Mortality among the elderly in the Alameda county study: Behavioral and demographic risk factors. American Journal of Public Health, 77(3), 307–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kebede, B. (2003). Genetic endowments, parental and child health in rural Ethiopia. The center for the study of African economies working paper series no. 193.

  • Kinney, P., & Ozkanyak, H. (1991). Associations of daily mortality and air pollution in Los Angeles county. Environmental Research, 54, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michau, J.-B. (2009). Unemployment insurance and cultural transmission: Theory and application to European unemployment. London: Mimeo, London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivier, J., Thoenig, M., & Verdier, T. (2008). Globalization and the dynamics of cultural identity. Journal of International Economics, 76(2), 356–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peto, R., Lopez, A. D., Boreham, J., Thun, M., & Heath, C. (1992). Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: Indirect estimation from natural vital statistics. The Lancet, 339, 1268–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponthiere, G. (2007). Monetizing longevity gains under welfare interdependencies: An exploratory study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 449–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponthiere, G. (2010). Unequal longevities and lifestyle transmission. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(1), 93–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, C., & Manson, J. E. (1997). Obesity and mortality: A review of the epidemiological data. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 66(4), 1044–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yashin, A., & Iachine, I. (1997). How frailty models can be used for evaluating longevity limits: Taking advantage of an interdisciplinary approach. Demography, 34(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Manouchehr Mokhtari and three anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions and remarks on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory Ponthiere.

Appendices

Appendices

Basic Model: Existence and Uniqueness

The transition function is such that \(G(0)=0\) and \(G(1)=1\). Hence, \(G(q_{t})\) meets the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line at the two extremities, which are stationary equilibria. Note also that the derivative of \(G(q_{t})\) with respect to \(q_{t}\) is

$$ G^{\prime }(q_{t})=1+\frac{\beta \left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) } {\delta }\left[ \pi ^{H}(1-q_{t})^{2}-\pi ^{H}q_{t}2(1-q_{t})-\pi ^{U}2q_{t}(1-q_{t})+\pi ^{U}q_{t}^{2}\right] $$

We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G^{\prime }(0) &=1+\frac{\beta \left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }\pi ^{H}>1 \\ G^{\prime }(1) &=1+\frac{\beta \left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }\pi ^{U}>1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, given that the slope of \(G(q_{t})\) is higher than 1 at \(q_{t}\) equal to 0 and 1, it must be the case that \(G(q_{t})\) is above the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 0, and below the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 1. Hence, by continuity, \(G(q_{t})\) must intersect the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line somewhere, for a level of \(q_{t}\) between 0 and 1. Regarding the uniqueness of that intermediate equilibrium, substituting for \(q_{t+1}=q_{t}=q\) in the transition function shows that this intermediate equilibrium takes a single value: \(q=\frac{\pi ^{H}}{\pi ^{H}+\pi ^{U}}>\frac{1}{2}\).

Basic Model: Stability

Stability requires \(\left\vert \frac{\partial G}{\partial q_{t}}\right\vert <1\). We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G^{\prime }(0) &=1+\frac{\beta \left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }\pi ^{H}>1 \\ G^{\prime }(1) &=1+\frac{\beta \left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }\pi ^{U}>1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus \(q=0\) and \(q=1\) are not stable.

Finally, at \(q_{t}=\frac{\pi ^{H}}{\pi ^{H}+\pi ^{U}}\), we have:

$$ G^{\prime }(q_{t})=1-\frac{\beta \left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }\frac{\pi ^{H}\pi ^{U}}{\pi ^{H}+\pi ^{U}}<1 $$

Given \(\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }{\delta }<1\), that expression is smaller than 1 in absolute value, so that the equilibrium is locally stable.

Altruistic Model: Existence and Uniqueness

Note that \(G_{1}(q_{t})\) is such that: \(G_{1}(0)=0\) and \(G_{1}(1)=1\). Hence, \(G_{1}(q_{t})\) meets the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line at the two extremities, which are stationary equilibria. The derivative of \(G_{1}( q_{t}) \) with respect to \(q_{t}\) is

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(q_{t}) &=1+\left[ 1-2q_{t}\right] \frac{\left[ \left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] (1-q_{t})-\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{ \varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] q_{t}\right] }{\delta } \\ &\quad+q_{t}(1-q_{t})\frac{\left[ -\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}- \tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] - \left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] \right] }{\delta } \end{aligned} $$

We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(0) =&1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta }>1 \\ G_{1}^{\prime }(1) =&1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) }{\delta }>1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, under \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) >\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), the transition function lies above the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 0, and below the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 1. Hence, the existence of an intermediate equilibrium can be proved as in the basic model. Fixing \(q_{t+1}=q_{t}=q\) in the transition function yields the intermediate equilibrium:

$$ q=\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) }> \frac{1}{2} $$

In the case where \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), the transition function \(G_{2}(q_{t})\) is such that \(G_{2}(0)=0\) and \(G_{2}(1)=1\). Hence, \(G_{2}(q_{t})\) meets the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line at the two extremities, which are stationary equilibria. Note also that

$$ G_{2}^{\prime }(q_{t})=1+\left[ -2(1-q_{t})q_{t}+(1-q_{t})^{2}\right] \frac{ \left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] }{\delta } $$

We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{2}^{\prime }(0)&=1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta}>1 \\ G_{2}^{\prime }(1) &=1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, under \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), the transition function lies above the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 0, but does not lie below the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 1. Actually, it is not difficult to show that there cannot be an intermediate equilibrium in this model. Indeed fixing \(q_{t+1}=q_{t}=q\) in the transition function yields:

$$ q=q+(1-q)^{2}q\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi} \right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] }{\delta } $$

which cannot be true for \(0<q<1\). Thus there exists no intermediate equilibrium under \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \).

Altruistic Model: Stability

In the case where \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) >\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), stability requires \(\left\vert \frac{\partial G_{1}} {\partial q_{t}}\right\vert <1\). We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(q_{t}) =&1+\left[ 1-2q_{t}\right] \frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] (1-q_{t})-\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}- \tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] q_{t} }{\delta } \\ &\quad +q_{t}(1-q_{t})\frac{-\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] -\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] }{\delta } \end{aligned} $$

Hence

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(0) =&1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta }>1 \\ G_{1}^{\prime }(1) =&1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) }{\delta }>1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, given \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) >\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), neither \(q=0\) nor \(q=1\) are stable.

Finally, at \(q_{t}=\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right)}\), we have:

$$ G_{1}^{\prime }(q_{t})=1-\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}- \tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] \left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] }{\delta \left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{ \varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) \right] }<1 $$

Hence, given that socialization efforts are between 0 and 1, the intermediate equilibrium must be locally stable.

When \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), stability requires \(\left\vert \frac{\partial G_{2}}{\partial q_{t}}\right\vert <1\). We have

$$ G_{2}^{\prime }(q_{t})=1+\left[ -2(1-q_{t})q_{t}+(1-q_{t})^{2}\right] \frac{ \left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] }{\delta } $$

Hence

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{2}^{\prime }(0) &=1+\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}- \tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] } {\delta }>1 \\ G_{2}^{\prime }(1) &=1 \end{aligned} $$

so that \(q=0\) is not stable. Regarding \(q=1\), the equality \(G_{2}^{\prime }(1)=1\) does not exactly coincide with what insures local stability (a strict inequality). However, it is clear that the transition function crosses the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line from above at 1, and thus that equilibrium can be regarded as locally stable.

Asymmetric Costs: Existence and Uniqueness

Note first that the transition function \(G_{1}(q_{t})\) is such that: \(G_{1}(0)=0\) and \(G_{1}(1)=1\). Hence, \(G_{1}( q_{t}) \) meets the 45\(^\circ\) line at the two extremities, which are stationary equilibria. Note also that:

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(q_{t}) &= 1+\left( 1-2q_{t}\right) \left[ \frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] (1-q_{t})}{\delta ^{H}}-\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] q_{t}}{\delta ^{U}}\right] \\ &\quad+(1-q_{t})q_{t}\left[ -\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}- \tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] }{ \delta ^{H}}-\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi} \right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] }{\delta ^{U}}\right] \end{aligned} $$

We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(0) =&1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta ^{H}}>1 \\ G_{1}^{\prime }(1) =&1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) }{\delta ^{U}}>1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, under \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) >\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), the transition function lies above the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 0, and below the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 1. Hence, the existence of an intermediate equilibrium can be proved as in the basic model. Fixing \(q_{t+1}=q_{t}=q\) in \(q_{t+1}=G(q_{t})\) allows us to derive the intermediate equilibrium:

$$ q=\frac{\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta ^{H}}}{\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta ^{H}}+\frac{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) }{\delta ^{U}}} $$

When \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), \(G_{2}(q_{t})\) is such that: \(G_{2}(0)=0\) and \(G_{2}(1)=1\). Hence, \(G_{2}(q_{t})\) meets the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line at the two extremities, which are stationary equilibria. Note also that

$$ G_{2}^{\prime }(q_{t})=1+\left[ -2(1-q_{t})q_{t}+(1-q_{t})^{2}\right] \frac{ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta ^{H}} $$

We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{2}^{\prime }(0)&= 1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta }>1 \\ G_{2}^{\prime }(1) &= 1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, under \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), the transition function lies above the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 0, but does not lie below the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line in the neighbourhood of 1. Actually, it is not difficult to show that there cannot be an intermediate equilibrium in this model. Indeed fixing \(q_{t+1}=q_{t}=q\) in the transition function yields:

$$ q=q+(1-q)^{2}q\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi} \right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] }{\delta ^{H}} $$

which cannot be true for \(0<q<1\). Thus there exists no intermediate equilibrium under \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \).

Asymmetric Costs: Stability

If \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) >\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), stability requires \(\left\vert \frac{\partial G_{1}}{\partial q_{t}}\right\vert <1\). We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(q_{t}) =&1+\left( 1-2q_{t}\right) \left[ \frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] (1-q_{t})}{\delta ^{H}}-\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] q_{t}}{\delta ^{U}}\right] \\ &\quad +(1-q_{t})q_{t}\left[ -\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}- \tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \right] }{ \delta ^{H}}-\frac{\left[ \beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi} \right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) \right] }{\delta ^{U}}\right] \end{aligned} $$

We have

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{\prime }(0) &=1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta ^{H}}>1 \\ G_{1}^{\prime }(1) &=1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{U}-\pi ^{H}\right) }{\delta ^{U}}>1 \end{aligned} $$

Thus, given \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) >\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), \(q=0\) and \(q=1\) are not stable.

Finally, at \(q_{t}=q^{2}\), we have: \(G_{1}^{\prime }(q_{t})<1\), so that, given that individual socialization efforts are between 0 and 1, the intermediate equilibrium, if it exists, must be locally stable.

If \(\beta \pi ^{U}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,\leq\, \alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) \), stability requires \(\left\vert \frac{\partial G_{2}}{\partial q_{t}}\right\vert <1\). We have

$$ G_{2}^{\prime }(q_{t})=1+\left[ -2(1-q_{t})q_{t}+(1-q_{t})^{2}\right] \frac{ \beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{\varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta } $$

Hence

$$ \begin{aligned} G_{2}^{\prime }(0) &=1+\frac{\beta \pi ^{H}\left( \hat{\varphi}-\tilde{ \varphi}\right) +\alpha \left( \pi ^{H}-\pi ^{U}\right) }{\delta }>1 \\ G_{2}^{\prime }(1) &=1 \end{aligned} $$

so that \(q=0\) is not stable. Regarding \(q=1\), the equality \(G_{2}^{\prime }(1)=1\) does not exactly coincide with what insures local stability (a strict inequality). However, it is clear that the transition function crosses the 45\({{}^\circ}\) line from above at 1, and, thus that equilibrium can be regarded as locally stable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ponthiere, G. Mortality, Family and Lifestyles. J Fam Econ Iss 32, 175–190 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9229-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9229-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation