Consider the two-period Real Business Cycle (RBC) model without uncertainty presented in the lecture slides, but with one modification. Now assume that the instantaneous utility function for households takes the form: where Ct is consumption at time t and (1- lt) is leisure time at time t. Given that the time endowment is normalized to 1, it follows that lt is hours worked at time t. Finally, Ɵ > 0, b > 0 and gamma > 0 are parameters. All households in the economy are assumed to be identical. We can therefore consider a 'representative household' (henceforth 'the household'). Set t = 1 for the present period and set t = 2 for the next period. For example, C1 is consumption in the present period and C2 is consumption in the next period. Remember, this is a two-period model so there are no time periods prior to t = 1 and there are no time periods after t = 2 Assume that the household begins and ends life with no accumulated wealth and that the real interest rate is r (where r>0). Labor economists (e.g. Altonji, 1986) typically estimate that the intertemporal elasticity of substitution for leisure is low; specifically, 0 < -¹< 1. Why is this finding problematic for our RBC model when comparing the predictions of the theory to relevant empirical evidence for the US or the UK?
Consider the two-period Real Business Cycle (RBC) model without uncertainty presented in the lecture slides, but with one modification. Now assume that the instantaneous utility function for households takes the form:
where Ct is consumption at time t and (1- lt) is leisure time at time t. Given that the time endowment is normalized to 1, it follows that lt is hours worked at time t. Finally, Ɵ > 0, b > 0 and gamma > 0 are parameters.
All households in the economy are assumed to be identical. We can therefore consider a 'representative household' (henceforth 'the household'). Set t = 1 for the present period and set t = 2 for the next period. For example, C1 is consumption in the present period and C2 is consumption in the next period. Remember, this is a two-period model so there are no time periods prior to t = 1 and there are no time periods after t = 2 Assume that the household begins and ends life with no accumulated wealth and that the real interest rate is r (where r>0).
Labor economists (e.g. Altonji, 1986) typically estimate that the intertemporal elasticity of substitution for leisure is low; specifically, 0 < -¹< 1. Why is this finding problematic for our RBC model when comparing the predictions of the theory to relevant empirical evidence for the US or the UK?
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps with 10 images
