The Representative Household Assumption Requires sustainable Heterogeneity in Dynamic Models

Harashima, Taiji (2014): The Representative Household Assumption Requires sustainable Heterogeneity in Dynamic Models.

Abstract

The assumption of the representative household defined as the average of all households is impossible in dynamic models if households are heterogeneous in their time preference rates because, as is well known, the most patient household eventually prevails. Because time preference rates are unquestionably heterogeneous across economies and time periods, macroeconomics studies using the representative household assumption in dynamic models are fallacious. I present an alternative definition of the representative household based on the concept of sustainable heterogeneity. By this definition, use of the representative household assumption becomes possible in dynamic models.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: The representative household; Sustainable heterogeneity; Dynamic models; The rate of time preference; Macroeconomics
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling > C60 - General; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E1 - General Aggregative Models > E10 - General

References

Aghion, Philippe and Peter Howitt. (1998) “Endogenous Growth Theory,” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Antonelli, Giovanni Battista. (1886) Sulla Teoria Matematica Della Economia Politica, Pisa, Tipografia del Falchetto.

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962). “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, pp. 155–173.

Becker, Robert A. (1980) “On the Long-run Steady State in a Simple Dynamic Model of Equilibrium with Heterogeneous Households,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 375–382.

Farmer, Roger E. A. and Amartya Lahiri. (2005) “Recursive Preferences and Balanced Growth,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vo. 125, No. 1, pp. 61–77.

Ghiglino, Christian. (2002) “Introduction to a General Equilibrium Approach to Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 105, No.1, pp. 1–17.

Harashima, Taiji. (2009) “A Theory of Total Factor Productivity and the Convergence Hypothesis: Workers’ Innovations as an Essential Element,” MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper, No. 15508.

Harashima, Taiji. (2010) “Sustainable Heterogeneity: Inequality, Growth, and Social Welfare in a Heterogeneous Population,” MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper, No. 24233.

Harashima, Taiji. (2012) “Sustainable Heterogeneity as the Unique Socially Optimal Allocation for Almost All Social Welfare Functions,” MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper, No. 40938.

Harashima, Taiji. (2013) “An Asymptotically Non-Scale Endogenous Growth Model,” MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper, No. 44393

Jacobs, Jane. (1969). The Economy of Cities, Random House, New York.

Jones, Charles I. (1995a) “Time Series Test of Endogenous Growth Models,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 495–525.

Jones, Charles I. (1995b) “R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 759–784.

Lawrance, Emily C. (1991) “Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference: Evidence from Panel Data,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 54–77.

Marshall, Alfred. (1890) Principles of Economics, Macmillan, London.

Peretto, Pietro and Sjak Smulders. (2002) “Technological Distance, Growth and Scale Effects,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 112, pp. 603–624.

Prescott, Edward C. (1998) “Needed: A Theory of Total Factor Productivity,” International Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 525–551.

Romer, Paul M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, No. 5, pp. 1002–1037.

Samwick, Andrew A. (1998) “Discount Rate Heterogeneity and Social Security Reform,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 117–146.

Ventura, Luigi. (2003) “Direct Measure of Time-preference,” Economic and Social Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 293–310.