180
F R E D E R I C K E T A L .
specific alternative functional forms, he did suggest that “special attention” be
given to the case of declining discount rates.
Motivated by the evidence discussed earlier, there has been a recent surge of
interest among economists in the implications of declining discount rates (begin-
ning with Laibson 1994, 1997). This literature has used a particularly simple func-
tional form that captures the essence of hyperbolic discounting:
This functional form was first introduced by Phelps and Pollak (1968) to study in-
tergenerational altruism, and was first applied to individual decision making by
Elster (1979). It assumes that the per-period discount rate between now and the
next period is (1
2
bd
)/
bd
whereas the per-period discount rate between any two
future periods is
Hence, this (
b
,
d
) formulation assumes a declining discount rate between this pe-
riod and next, but a constant discount rate thereafter. The (
b
,
d
) formulation is
highly tractable, and captures many of the
qualitative
implications of hyperbolic
discounting.
Laibson and his collaborators have used the (
b
,
d
) formulation to explore the
implications of hyperbolic discounting for consumption-saving behavior. Hyper-
bolic discounting leads one to consume more than one would like to from a prior
perspective (or, equivalently, to undersave). Laibson (1997) explores the role of
illiquid assets, such as housing, as an imperfect commitment technology, empha-
sizing how one could limit overconsumption by tying up one’s wealth in illiquid
assets. Laibson (1998) explores consumption-saving decisions in a world without
illiquid assets (or any other commitment technology). These papers describe how
hyperbolic discounting might explain some stylized empirical facts, such as the
excess comovement of income and consumption, the existence of asset-specific
marginal propensities to consume, low levels of precautionary savings, and the
correlation of measured levels of patience with age, income, and wealth. Laibson,
Repetto, and Tobacman (1998), and Angeletos and colleagues (2001) calibrate
models of consumption-saving decisions, using both exponential discounting and
(
b
,
d
) hyperbolic discounting. By comparing simulated data to real-world data,
they demonstrate how hyperbolic discounting can better explain a variety of em-
pirical observations in the consumption-saving literature. In particular, Angeletos
and colleagues (2001) describe how hyperbolic discounting can explain the coex-
istence of high preretirement wealth, low liquid asset holdings (relative to income
levels and illiquid asset holdings), and high credit-card debt.
Fischer (1999) and O’Donoghue and Rabin (1999c, 2001) have applied
(
b
,
d
) preferences to procrastination, where hyperbolic discounting leads a
person to put off an onerous activity more than she would like to from a prior
1
1
−
<
−
δ
δ
βδ
βδ
.
D k
h
k
k
( )
.
=
=
>
1
0
0
if
if
βδ
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |