5
$\begingroup$

$$ \newcommand{\E}{\mathbb{E}} $$ Let a consumption sequence be given $C=(C_0, C_1,...)$ and let $C_t^+ = (C_t, C_{t+1}, ...)$. Now, suppose I have Epstein-Zin preferences, \begin{align*} U_t(C_t^+) &= f(C_t, q(U_{t+1}(C_{t+1}^+))) \\ U_t &= \left \{(1-\beta) C_t^{1-\rho} + \beta \left(\E_t[U_{t+1}^{1-\gamma}]\right)^{\frac{1-\rho}{1-\gamma}} \right\}^{\frac{1}{1-\rho}}, \end{align*} where $f$ is the time aggregator and $q$ is the conditional certainty equivalent operator. That is, $$ f(c,q) = ((1-\beta) c^{1-\rho} + \beta q^{1-\rho})^{\frac{1}{1-\rho}} $$ and $$ q_t = q(U_{t+1}) = \left(\E_t[U_{t+1}^{1-\gamma}]\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\gamma}}. $$ How do I show that the intertemporal elasticity of substitution is $\rho^{-1}$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi there. In your self-answer you wrote "Let me know if anybody has a cleaner/clearer approach", but you haven't responded at all at the approach I proposed. Any comments? $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Feb 25 '16 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ I have commented below. $\endgroup$ – jmbejara Feb 25 '16 at 18:46
3
$\begingroup$

$ \newcommand{\dd}{\, \mathrm{d}} \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}} $ Here is my solution. Let me know if anybody has a cleaner/clearer approach.

Consider a fixed (non-random) consumption sequence $C = (C_0, C_1,...)$. Then, the elasticity of intertemporal substitution (EIS) is defined as $$ \text{EIS} = \left| \frac{\dd \ln(C_s/C_t)}{\dd \ln MRS_{s,t}}\right| = \left|\frac{\dd \ln \left(\frac{C_s}{C_t}\right)} {\dd \ln \left( \frac{\partial U/\partial C_s}{\partial U/\partial C_{t}}\right)} \right |. $$ To compute this figure, let's start by computing \begin{align*} \pd{U_t}{C_t} &= f_c(C_t, q_t(U_{t+1}(C_{t+1}^+))) \\ &= \frac{1}{1-\rho} \left( (1-\beta) C_t^{1-\rho} + \beta q^{1-\rho} \right)^{\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}} (1-\beta) (1-\rho) C_t^{-\rho} \\ &= (1-\beta) f_t^{\rho} C_t^{-\rho}. \end{align*} Also, \begin{align*} \pd{U_t}{C_{t+1}} &= f_q \cdot \frac{\dd q_t}{\dd U_{t+1}} \cdot \pd{U_{t+1}}{C_{t+1}}. \end{align*} It will be easier to compute these pieces in parts. First, $$ f_q = \beta f^{\rho} q_t^{-\rho}. $$ Next, consider $\frac{\dd q_t}{\dd U_{t+1}}$. This is simplified by the fact that $C$ is non-random, $$ \frac{\dd q_t}{\dd U_{t+1}} = q_t^\gamma U_{t+1}^{-\gamma} = 1. $$ Finally, $$ \pd{U_{t+1}}{C_{t+1}} = (1-\beta) f_{t+1}^{\rho} C_{t+1}^{-\rho}, $$ which follows from our earlier calculation. Thus, \begin{align*} \pd{U_t}{C_{t+1}} &= f_q \cdot \frac{\dd q_t}{\dd U_{t+1}} \cdot \pd{U_{t+1}}{C_{t+1}} \\ &= \beta f_t^{\rho} q_t^{-\rho} (1-\beta) f_{t+1}^{\rho} C_{t+1}^{-\rho}, \end{align*} where $f_t = f(C_t, q_t)$ and $q_t = q(U_{t+1}(C_{t+1}^+))$. Now, we can calculate \begin{align*} \frac{\partial U_t/\partial C_{t+1}}{\partial U_t/\partial C_t} &= \frac { \beta f_t^{\rho} q_t^{-\rho} (1-\beta) f_{t+1}^{\rho} C_{t+1}^{-\rho}} {(1-\beta) f_t^{\rho} C_t^{-\rho}} \\ &= \beta q_t^{-\rho} f_{t+1}^{\rho} \left(\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}\right)^{-\rho}\\ \end{align*} Now, let $$ \frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t} = \frac{\partial U_t/\partial C_{t+1}}{\partial U_t/\partial C_t}. $$ Then, taking the differentials, $$ \dd \left(\frac{p_t}{p_0}\right) = \frac{\partial U_t/\partial C_{t+1}}{\partial U_t/\partial C_t} \left(\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}\right)^{-1} (-\rho) \dd \frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}. $$ So, \begin{align*} \frac{\dd\left(\frac{ C_{t+1}}{C_t}\right)}{\dd \left(\frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}\right)} \cdot \frac{\frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}}{\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}} &= \left( \frac{\partial U_t/\partial C_{t+1}}{\partial U_t/\partial C_t} \left(\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}\right)^{-1} (-\rho) \right)^{-1} \cdot \frac{\frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}}{\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}} \\ &= -\frac{\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t} \frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}} {\frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t} \frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}} \rho^{-1} = -\rho^{-1}. \end{align*} Now, plugging this into the definition of the EIS, \begin{align*} \text{EIS} &= \left|\frac{\dd \ln \left(\frac{C_s}{C_t}\right)} {\dd \ln \left( \frac{\partial U/\partial C_s}{\partial U/\partial C_{t}}\right)} \right | \\ &= \left| \frac{\dd\left(\frac{ C_{t+1}}{C_t}\right)}{\dd \left(\frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}\right)} \cdot \frac{\frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}}{\frac{C_{t+1}}{C_t}} \right| \\ &= \rho^{-1}. \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Following your derivation except for one piece: $\frac{\dd q_t}{\dd U_{t+1}}$. Can you explain why the expectation operator disappears? Specifically why is it not this: $\frac{\dd q_t}{\dd U_{t+1}} = q_t^\gamma E_{t}U_{t+1}^{-\gamma}$ $\endgroup$ – Alex Jun 21 '16 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex. It's because I've assumed that a fixed (non-random) consumption sequence. When I get some time, I'd like to try this again without making that assumption. $\endgroup$ – jmbejara Aug 27 '16 at 1:24
0
$\begingroup$

By using compact notation, and a bold treatment of the differential symbol $\text{d}$, I think you can shortcut this significantly.

Mathematically, this is a bivariate CES function so we know that the elasticity of substitution will be constant between the two arguments, whatever they are.

$$f(c,q) = ((1-\beta) c^{1-\rho} + \beta q^{1-\rho})^{\frac{1}{1-\rho}} = \left[h(c,q\right]^{\frac{1}{1-\rho}}$$

Then

$$\frac {\partial f}{\partial c} = \frac{1}{1-\rho}\left[h(c,q\right]^{\frac{1}{1-\rho}-1}\cdot h_c$$

and

$$\frac {\partial f}{\partial q} = \frac{1}{1-\rho}\left[h(c,q\right]^{\frac{1}{1-\rho}-1}\cdot h_q$$

So

$$\frac{\partial f/\partial c}{\partial f/\partial q} = \frac{h_c}{h_q} = \frac {(1-\beta)}{\beta}\cdot (c/q)^{-\rho}$$

Further

$$\ln \left(\frac{\partial f/\partial c}{\partial f/\partial q}\right) = \ln\frac {(1-\beta)}{\beta} -\rho\ln (c/q)$$

$$\implies \text{d}\left[\ln \left(\frac{\partial f/\partial c}{\partial f/\partial q}\right)\right] = -\rho\cdot \text{d}\,\ln (c/q)$$

since the first term is a constant. So finally,

$$\text{EIS} = \left|\frac{\text{d}\, \ln \left(c/q\right)} {\text{d}\, \ln \left( \frac{\partial f/\partial c}{\partial f/\partial q}\right)} \right |$$

$$=\left|\frac{\text{d}\, \ln \left(c/q\right)} {-\rho\cdot \text{d}\,\ln (c/q)} \right | = \rho^{-1}$$

Don't tell your friend the mathematician, but tell Leibniz.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is definitely cleaner. My only concern was that, technically, this appears to give the elasticity of substitution between consumption today $c$ and the continuation value $q$. While this turns out to be the same thing as the EIS between consumption today $C_t$ and consumption tomorrow $C_{t+1}$, I don't feel like I know enough about Epstein-Zin preferences (and recursive preferences, in general) to comment as to when this will or will not be the case generally. $\endgroup$ – jmbejara Feb 25 '16 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ @jmbejara Indeed, given the CES specification (which is a mathematical structure, irrespective of the interpretation we attach to the symbols), the "elasticity of substitution" for it is necessarily calculated between its two arguments, which are indeed $C_t$ and $q_t$. $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Feb 25 '16 at 19:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.