Skip to main content
Log in

The golden rule when preferences are time inconsistent

  • Published:
Mathematics and Financial Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the classical Ramsey problem of economic growth when the planner uses non-constant discounting. It is well-known that this leads to time inconsistency, so that optimal strategies are no longer implementable. We then define equilibrium strategies to be such that unilateral deviations occurring during a small time interval are penalized. Non-equilibrium strategies are not implementable, so only equilibrium strategies should be considered by a rational planner. We show that there exists such strategies which are (a) smooth, and (b) lead to stationary growth, as in the classical Ramsey model. Finally, we prove an existence and multiplicity result: for logarithmic utility and quasi-exponential discount, there is an interval I such that, for every k in I, there is an equilibrium strategy converging to k. We conclude by giving an example where the planner is led to non-constant discount rates by considerations of intergenerational equity.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carr J.: Applications of Centre Manifold Theory. Springer, NY (1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Dasgupta P.: On some alternative criteria for justice between generations. J. Public Econ. 3, 405–423 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dasgupta P.: On some problems arising from professor Rawls’ conception of distributive justice. Theory Decis. 4, 325–344 (1974)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ekeland, I., Lazrak, A.: Being Serious About Non-Cmmitment. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0604264. Accessed 12 April 2006

  5. Ekeland, I., Lazrak, A.: Equilibrium policies when preferences are time inconsistent. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3790. Accessed 27 August 2008

  6. Frederick S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T.: Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J. Econ. Lit. 40, 351–401 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris C., Laibson D.: Dynamic choices of hyperbolic consumers. Econometrica 69, 935–957 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Karp L.: Global warming and hyperbolic discounting. J. Public Econ. 89, 261–282 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Karp L.: Non-constant discounting in continuous time. J. Econ. Theory 132, 557–568 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Karp L., Fuji T.: Numerical analysis of a non-constant pure rate of time preference: a model of climate policy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 56, 83–101 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Karp L., Lee I.H.: Time-consistent policies. J. Econ. Theory 112, 353–364 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Krusell P., Smith A.: Consumption-savings decisions with quasi-geometric discounting. Econometrica 71(1), 365–375 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Phelps E.S.: The indeterminacy of game-equilibrium growth. In: Phelps, E.S. (ed.) Altruism, Morality and Economic theory, pp. 87–105. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Phelps E.S., Pollak R.A.: On second-best national saving and game-equilibrium growth. Rev. Econ. Stud. 35, 185–199 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramsey F.P.: A mathematical theory of saving. Econ. J. 38(152), 543–559 (1928)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sumaila U., Walters C.: Intergenerational discounting: a new intuitive approach. Ecol. Econ. 52, 135–142 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivar Ekeland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ekeland, I., Lazrak, A. The golden rule when preferences are time inconsistent. Math Finan Econ 4, 29–55 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11579-010-0034-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11579-010-0034-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation