question about welfare calculation in a JME paper

This forum is closed. You can read the posts but cannot write. We have migrated the forum to a new location where you will have to reset your password.
Forum rules
This forum is closed. You can read the posts but cannot write. We have migrated the forum to a new location (https://forum.dynare.org) where you will have to reset your password.

question about welfare calculation in a JME paper

Postby zhanshuo » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:26 pm

Dear all,
I am confused on the calculation method in the paper of “Capital controls and optimal Chinese monetary policy“, which is published on JME 2015.
Here I attach the DYNARE CODE and the paper downloaded from the author's website.
And the key part of the code is below:

planner_objective(C + log(C_ss) - (Phi_l*L_ss^(1+eta)/(1+eta))*exp((1+eta)*L));
ramsey_policy(planner_discount=1, nograph, noprint, irf=20, periods=1000, instruments=(R));
welf = -(1/(1-beta))*C_ss*Phi_l*(eta/2)*L_ss^(eta-1)*oo_.var(2,2);

Here comes by question:
Since in they write their model in log_liearizing way, why they define welfare in a recursive way which Prof. Pleifer said should only be used in no-linear model? And what is the relationship between a recursively defined welfare function in the paper and the welfare calculation equation in the MOD file, which is "welf = -(1/(1-beta))*C_ss*Phi_l*(eta/2)*L_ss^(eta-1)*oo_.var(2,2);". And the latter seemingly only cares about the variance of labor.

Thanks a lot.
Attachments
1-s2.0-S0304393215000501-main.pdf
(476.4 KiB) Downloaded 56 times
Bench.mod
(5.44 KiB) Downloaded 60 times
zhanshuo
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 7:59 am

Re: question about welfare calculation in a JME paper

Postby zhanshuo » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:03 pm

Call for help, thanks!
zhanshuo
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 7:59 am

Re: question about welfare calculation in a JME paper

Postby jpfeifer » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:57 pm

That is hard to tell. I haven't read the paper, but they are explicit about the limitations of their approach in footnote 9. Using a recursive definition of utility is always fine, the problem is that the constraints are linearized, which is not generally correct.

With respect to welfare only depending on the variance of labor, it might be some algebraic transformation that gives rise to this expression. You might need to ask the authors.
------------
Johannes Pfeifer
University of Cologne
https://sites.google.com/site/pfeiferecon/
jpfeifer
 
Posts: 6940
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany


Return to Dynare help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests