Solving Dynamic Models with Heterogeneous Agents and Aggregate Uncertainty with Dynare or Dynare++ Wouter J. DEN HAAN1

Tarik OCAKTAN2

1 Department

of Economics University of Amsterdam

2 Paris

School of Economics

Society for Computational Economics (Sydney, 2009)

Outline

Motivation Heterogeneous agent models Previous Work

Our Results/Contribution Main Results Basic Ideas for Implementation

Reasons to study heterogeneous agents framework. ◮

Representative agent framework: ◮







Issues that require heterogeneous agent framework ◮ ◮



New Keynesian models rely either on the representative agent paradigm or on a very limited degree of heterogeneity (i.e., patient and impatient agents). Assumption needed to justify the representative agent model are not realistic (i.e., perfect insurance of idiosyncratic risk). Popularity due to the availability of solution toolboxes (i.e., Uhlig’s toolbox, Schmitt-Grohe and Uribe codes, Dynare, . . . ). Distribution of wealth and income. Inequality.

Macroeconomic fluctuations are likely to affect agents differently and economic policy should take this into account.

Solving Heterogeneous Agent Models: Challenges. ◮

Combining heterogeneity and aggregate risk makes it difficult to obtain a numerical solution.



Time varying distribution of capital holdings across agents.



Knowledge about this distribution is required for forecasting future prices



Time-varying distribution means high-dimensional state space

Solving Heterogeneous Agent Models Previous Work. ◮

Krusell and Smith (JPE,1998): 1. 2. 3. 4.



Algan, Allais, and den Haan (JEDC,2008): ◮ ◮



Parameterized approximation of the distribution function. Avoids simulation step.

Preston and Roca (NBER,2007): ◮ ◮



Set an arbitrary law of motion for selected moments. Solve the individual problem. Simulate the economy for N agents and T time periods. Regress and update the aggregate law of motion.

Perturbation method. Choice of the moments is determined by the order of the approximation.

den Haan and Rendahl (JEDC,forthcoming): ◮

Explicit aggregation (XPA).

Our Contribution. 1. Establish link between the algorithm of Preston and Roca (2006) and the explicit aggregation algorithm by den Haan and Rendahl (2009). 2. Describe (simple) steps that allow one to solve this program using Dynare and a simple "mother" program. 3. Compare two algorithms: KS & XPA. 3.1 KS very popular. 3.2 XPA new algorithm but makes "mother" program very simple if individual policy rules are solved with Dynare.

4. Compare global solution method with local solution method

The Krusell and Smith (1998) Model. Individual Optimization Problem.

The model is characterized by : max Et

{cit ,ai,t+1 }

∞ X t=0

β

1−γ t cit

−1 1−γ

s.t. cit + ai,t+1 = r (kt , lt , zt )ait + w (kt , lt , zt )eit¯l + (1 − δ)ait ait ≥ b with zt ∼ Markov process and eit ∼ Markov process. The law of motion for the distribution is given by Γt+1 = H(Γt ) ◮

rt = Fk



wt = Fl lt = ¯l



The Krusell and Smith (1998) Model. Individual Optimization Problem.

The model is characterized by three modifications: 1. Continuum of individuals indexed by i ∈ [0, 1]. 2. Replace the borrowing constraint by a penalty term. 3. Shocks have continuous support. max Et

{cit ,ai,t+1 }

∞ X t=0

βt

cit1−γ − 1 − φP(ai,t+1 ) 1−γ

s.t. cit + ai,t+1 = r (kt , lt , zt )ait + w (kt , lt , zt )eit¯l + (1 − δ)ait with zt ∼ AR(1) and eit ∼ AR(1) . The law of motion for the distribution is given by Γt+1 = H(Γt ) R ◮ kt = ait di ◮ rt = Fk ◮ wt = Fl ◮ lt = ¯ l

Explicit Aggregation. The jth iteration.

1. k ′ = ζ0j + ζ1j k + ζ2j z 2. Solve for the individual policy functions (using projection or perturbation): a′i = θ0j + θ1j ai + θ2j ei + θ3j z + θ4j k R 3. Update the aggregate law of motion, using k ′ = a′i di: Z Z j j j j j ′ k = θ0 + θ1 ai di + θ2 ei di + θ3 z + θ4 k Using k ≡

R

ai di and

R

ei di = 1, we get:

j+1

ζ0

j

j

= θ0 + θ2

ζ1j+1 = θ1j + θ4j j+1

ζ2

j

= θ3

Solving the Model. Convergence

The coefficients of the aggregate law of motion stabilize after several iterations (||ζ j+1 − ζ j || < 10−6 ).

0

10

ζ

0

−10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40 Iterations

50

60

70

80

ζ1

1

0.5

0

ζ

2

2

1

0

First Order Approximation.

Initialize aggregate law of motion: k ′ = ζ00 + ζ10 k + ζ20 z 1. Solve for individual policy rule using perturbation or projection method a′i = θ0 + θ1 ai + θ2 ei + θ3 z + θ4 k

No

2. Update aggregate law of motion B. Explicit Aggregation A. Simulation and regression R 2.1. Simulate economy using the 2.1. Compute Rait di explicitly R k ′ = θ0 + θ1 ai di + θ2 ei di policy rules obtained in step 1. and construct a time series +θ3 z + θ4 k for ai with i = 1, . . . , N and P aggregate kt = N1 i ait 2.2. Use a regression analysis 2.2. Reordering ζ0i+1 = θ0 + θ2 to get a new estimate for the law of motion ζ1i+1 = θ1 + θ4 and update ζ i to ζ i+1 ζ2i+1 = θ3 3. If ζ i − ζ i+1 < tol Yes End

Second Order Approximation.

Initialize aggregate law of motion and 2nd order moments: k′ = g2 (k , Mae , Ma2 , z; ζ 0 ) Ma′ 2 = g2 (k , Mae , Ma2 , z; ζ¯0 ) ′ Mae = g2 (k , Mae , Ma2 , k ′ , z; ζ˜0 ) 1. Solve for individual policy rule using perturbation or projection method a′ = P2 (a, e, z, k , Mae , Ma2 ; θ) ¯ a′2 = P2 (a, e, z, k , Mae , Ma2 ; θ) ′ ˜ a e = P2 (a, e, z, k , Mae , Ma2 ; θ)

No

2. Update aggregate law of motion and 2nd order moments R k′ = R P2 (a, e, z, k , Mae , Ma2 ; θ)di ¯ Ma′ 2 = P2 (a, e, z, k , M R ae , Ma2 ; θ)di ′ ˜ Mae = (1 − ρe )k ′ + ρe P2 (a, e, z, k , Mae , Ma2 ; θ)di 3. If ζ i − ζ i+1 < tol Yes End

Comparing Solution Methods. Coefficients of the aggregate law of motion (γ = 1).

The results obtained through explicit aggregation are similar to the Krusell and Smith (1998) approach. Method for ALM γ

σe

1.0

0.005

Simulation Xpa

0.05

Simulation Xpa

0.1

Simulation Xpa

Coefficients for the ALM ζ0 ζ1 ζ2 const k z Perturbation Projection Perturbation Projection

-0.30165 -0.30813 -0.30175 -0.31062

0.85681 0.85735 0.85683 0.85763

1.03873 1.04214 1.03878 1.04315

Perturbation Projection Perturbation Projection

-0.30086 -0.31710 -0.30175 -0.31850

0.85690 0.85860 0.85683 0.85868

1.03746 1.05165 1.03878 1.05269

Perturbation Projection Perturbation Projection

-0.30001 -0.34011 -0.30175 -0.34479

0.85740 0.86216 0.85683 0.86245

1.03401 1.08183 1.03878 1.08491

Comparing Solution Methods. Coefficients of the aggregate law of motion (γ = 2).

Differences occur between the approximations obtained from projection and perturbation for high idiosyncratic uncertainty. Method for ALM γ

σe

2.0

0.005

Simulation Xpa

0.05

Simulation Xpa

0.1

Simulation Xpa

Coefficients for the ALM ζ0 ζ1 ζ2 const k z Perturbation Projection Perturbation Projection

-0.46179 -0.46250 -0.46190 -0.46848

0.89435 0.89426 0.89436 0.89480

1.00567 1.00530 1.00574 1.00850

Perturbation Projection Perturbation Projection

-0.46068 -0.48468 -0.46190 -0.48934

0.89447 0.89665 0.89436 0.89719

1.00389 1.02768 1.00574 1.02956

Perturbation Projection Perturbation Projection

-0.45916 -0.56627 -0.46190 -0.57097

0.89502 0.90757 0.89436 0.90732

0.99951 1.10671 1.00574 1.11321

Approximation Accuracy. log Euler equation errors

Perturbation is less accurate than projection if idiosyncratic risk is high.

γ

σe

1.0

0.005 0.050 0.100 0.005 0.050 0.100 0.005 0.050 0.100

1.5

2.0

First Order Approximation Projection Perturbation ||E||∞ ||E||1 ||E||∞ ||E||1 -5.2119 -5.1441 -4.8109 -5.2679 -5.3538 -4.7907 -5.2555 -5.1424 -4.5529

-7.1647 -7.1013 -6.0265 -7.4768 -7.1730 -5.7823 -7.5171 -7.0488 -5.6149

-5.2734 -4.9779 -4.4006 -5.3530 -4.9949 -4.2882 -5.3215 -4.9148 -4.0674

-7.5850 -6.6844 -5.1563 -7.6463 -6.5249 -4.9477 -7.6430 -6.3372 -4.7447

Aggregate Capital Dynamics. Idiosyncratic Risk

Increase σe from 0.005 to 0.1, for given γ = 2: ◮



First order perturbation does not capture the effect of rising idiosyncratic risk. Using second order perturbation, higher idiosyncratic uncertainty lowers the mean of the distribution.

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

Aggregate Capital Dynamics. Risk Aversion

Higher risk aversion yields: ◮ ◮

Higher volatility of k. Lower mean of k.

Sample mean and standard deviation for aggregate capital (T = 400 and σe = 0.005): Method Order γ

Mean

Std.dev.

Perturbation Mean

Std.dev.

Mean

Std.dev.

Mean

Std.dev.

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

5.1283 5.1255 5.1231 5.1209 5.1190 5.1174

0.1330 0.1496 0.1638 0.1759 0.1862 0.1950

5.1284 5.1256 5.1236 5.1218 5.1204 5.1191

0.1337 0.1506 0.1652 0.1779 0.1888 0.1983

5.1244 5.1154 5.1062 5.0973 5.0889 5.0811

0.1340 0.1505 0.1645 0.1762 0.1859 0.1938

5.1339 5.1260 5.0732 5.0271 5.0455 4.9366

0.1333 0.1501 0.1643 0.1762 0.1877 0.1937

1

Projection 2

1

2

Aggregate Capital Dynamics. Risk Aversion

6

5.8

5.6

5.6

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.2

5.2

5.2

5

5

5

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.2

4

50

100

150

200

250

300

(a) γ = 1.00

350

4

400

4.2

50

100

150

200

250

300

(b) γ = 2.00

350

4

400

6

6

6

5.8

5.8

5.8

5.6

5.6

5.6

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.2

5.2

5.2

5

5

k

k

k

6

5.8

5.6

k

6

5.8

k

k

(a)-(c): perturbation and (d)-(f): projection. Dotted line: second order approximation. T = 400 and σe = 0.005.

4.8

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.2

4.2

4

4

100

150

200

250

300

(d) γ = 1.00

350

400

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

(c) γ = 3.50

5

4.8

50

50

4.2

50

100

150

200

250

300

(e) γ = 2.00

350

400

4

50

(f) γ = 3.50

Algorithm. Matlab and Dynare Code

The Matlab code: for idxIter = 1:iIter % Solve the model for given coeffs. of the aggregate law of motion (vZetaOld) dynare Dimension4PF noclearall ; vZetaNew(1) = vTheta(1) + vTheta(3); vZetaNew(2) = vTheta(2) + vTheta(5); vZetaNew(3) = vTheta(4); % Check convergence of coefficients dConv = fnConvergence(vZetaNew,vZetaOld,iTol); if dConv == 1 break; end vZetaOld = dLambda * vZetaNew + (1-dLambda) * vZetaOld; pZeta0 = vZetaOld(1); pZeta1 = vZetaOld(2); pZeta2 = vZetaOld(3); delete InitParams.mat; save InitParams.mat pZeta0 pZeta1 pZeta2; end

Algorithm. Matlab and Dynare Code

The Dynare code: var ... ; // declare endogeneous variables varexo ...; // declare exogeneous variables parameters ... ; // declare parameters load InitParams; // load coefficients for ALM set_param_value(’pZeta0’,pZeta0); set_param_value(’pZeta1’,pZeta1); set_param_value(’pZeta2’,pZeta2); load StructParams; // load structural parameters (sensitivity analysis) set_param_value(’pGamma’,pGamma); set_param_value(’pSigmae’,pSigmae); model; ... end; // model block initval; ... end; // initial values for solver shocks; ... end; // declare shocks stoch_simul(order=1,nocorr,noprint,nomoments,IRF=0); // Collecting parameters mPolicy = [oo_.dr.ys’; oo_.dr.ghx’; oo_.dr.ghu’]; // read coefficients of policy functions mPolA = mPolicy(:,2); // Rearrange parameters dTheta0 = mPolA(1)-mPolA(2)*mPolA(1)-mPolA(6)-mPolA(7)-mPolA(5)*mPolicy(1,5); dTheta1 = mPolA(2); dTheta2 = mPolA(6); dTheta3 = mPolA(7); dTheta4 = mPolA(5); vTheta = [dTheta0 dTheta1 dTheta2 dTheta3 dTheta4];

Summary ◮

We showed how a heterogeneous agent model with aggregate uncertainty can be easily solved with Dynare and explicit aggregation.



The present algorithm yields similar results to the ones obtained by the Krusell and Smith (1998) approach, but it is faster and requires less memory space.



We have illustrated approximations up to the second order. Using Dynare++, it can easily be extended to the nth order case.



Outlook ◮



Problem: Convergence problems when σe and γ are high when solving with second order projection method. Third order approximation necessary for studying skewness of the distribution.

For Further Reading Den Haan, W.J. and P. Rendahl. Solving the incomplete markets model with aggregate uncertainty using explicit aggregation. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, forthcoming. Preston, B. and M. Roca. Incomplete Markets, Heterogeneity and Macroeconomic Dynamics. NBER Working Paper , No. W13260, 2007.

The Model. V (ai , ei ; z, Γ)

= s.t

   ci1−γ − 1 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ max + βE V (ai , ei ; z , Γ ) − φP(ai ) 1−γ {ci ,a′i } (1 − δ)ai + r (k , l, z)ai + w(k , l, z)ei¯l − ci − a′ ≥ 0 

i



z = (1 − ρz )µz + ρz z + ε

′z

ei′ = (1 − ρe )µe + ρe ei + ε′e i Γ′ = H(Γ, z)

(1)

The Model. First Order Approximation.

V (ai , ei ; z, k )

= s.t

   ci1−γ − 1 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ max + βE V (ai , ei ; z , k ) − φP(ai ) 1−γ {ci ,a′i } (1 − δ)ai + r (k , l, z)ai + w(k , l, z)ei¯l − ci − a′ ≥ 0 

i



′z

z = (1 − ρz )µz + ρz z + ε ei′ = (1 − ρe )µe + ρe ei + ε′e i k ′ = ζ0 + ζ1 k + ζ2 z

(2)

The Model. Second Order Approximation.

V (ai , ei ; z, k , Mae , Ma2 )

= s.t

max

{ci ,a′ } i

 1−γ ci −1 1−γ

ff ˆ ′ ′ ′ ′ ˜ ′ ′ ′ + βE V (ai , ei ; z , k , Mae , M 2 ) − φP(ai ) a



(1 − δ)ai + r (k , l, z)ai + w (k , l, z)ei¯l − ci − ai ≥ 0 ′

′z

z = (1 − ρz )µz + ρz z + ε ′

′e

ei = (1 − ρe )µe + ρe ei + εi ′

(3) 2

2

k = ζ0 + ζ1 k + ζ2 z + ζ3 Mae + ζ4 Ma2 + ζ5 k + ζ6 z + ζ7 kz ′ 2 2 M 2 = ζ¯0 + ζ¯1 k + ζ¯2 z + ζ¯3 Mae + ζ¯4 Ma2 + ζ¯5 k + ζ¯6 z + ζ¯7 kz a ′ 2 2 Mae = ζ˜0 + ζ˜1 k + ζ˜2 z + ζ˜3 Mae + ζ˜4 M 2 + ζ˜5 k + ζ˜6 z + ζ˜7 kz a

Approximating Functions. Family of Monomials (2nd order projection method).

cst

a

e

z

k

Mae

M 2 a

cst

cst

a

e

z

k

Mae

a

a2

M 2 a

a

ae

az

ak

aMae

e

e

ea

e2

aMa2

ez

ek

eMae

z

z

za

ze

z2

zk

zMae

eM 2 a zM 2

k Mae

k Mae

ka Mae a

ke Mae e

kz Mae z

k2 Mae k

kMae Mae Mae

kMa2 Mae M 2

M 2 a

M 2 a

M 2a a

M 2e a

M 2z a

M 2k a

M 2 Mae a

M 22

a

a

a

Approximating Functions. Family of Monomials (2nd order perturbation method).

cst

a

e−1

z−1

k

Mae

εe

Ma2

εz

εe

εz

aεe

aεz

e−1 M 2 a z−1 M 2

e−1 εe

e−1 εz

z−1 εe

z−1 εz

kMa2 Mae Ma2

k εe Mae εe

k εz Mae εz

M 22

M 2 εe a

M 2 εz a

εe Ma2 εz Ma2

εe εe εz εe

εe εz εz εz

cst

cst

a

e−1

z−1

k

Mae

a

a2

M 2 a

a

ae−1

az−1

ak

aMae

e−1

e−1

e−1 a

2 e−1

aMa2

e−1 z−1

e−1 k

e−1 Mae

z−1

z−1

z−1 a

z−1 e−1

2 z−1

z−1 k

z−1 Mae

k Mae

k Mae

ka Mae a

ke−1 Mae e−1

kz−1 Mae z−1

k2 Mae k

kMae Mae Mae

M 2 a

M 2 a

M 2a a

M 2 e−1 a

M 2 z−1 a

M 2k a

M 2 Mae a

εe εz

εe εz

εe a εz a

εe e−1 εz e−1

εe z−1 εz z−1

εe k εz k

εe Mae εz Mae

a

a

Solving Dynamic Models with Heterogeneous Agents ...

2Paris School of Economics. Society for Computational Economics (Sydney, 2009) ... Shocks have continuous support. max. {cit ,ai,t+1}. Et. ∞. ∑ t=0 βt c. 1−γ.

265KB Sizes 2 Downloads 110 Views

Recommend Documents

Macroeconomic Models of Heterogeneous Agents
State-dependent pricing model with idiosyncratic shocks. .... Since there are many state variables, it is important to use appropriate approximation .... meaningful.

Optimal Monetary Policy with Heterogeneous Agents -
See Auclert (2016) for a recent analysis of the Fisherian redistributive channel ... to the World interest rate.9 We find that inflation rises slightly on impact, as the ... first-best and the constrained-effi cient allocation in heterogeneous-agents

Optimal Monetary Policy with Heterogeneous Agents -
to the World interest rate.9 We find that inflation rises slightly on impact, as the central bank tries to ... first-best and the constrained-effi cient allocation in heterogeneous-agents models. In ... as we describe in the online appendix. Beyond .

Solving a Dynamic Facility Location Problem with ...
Oct 20, 2015 - relaxation, mixed-integer programming, industrial application ... struction costs and transportation costs to satisfy customer demands. Oper- .... The hosting capacity of a logging camp can easily be expanded by adding.

models for intelligent agents
Department of Computer Science. University of North Texas. Denton ... Computer networking and distributed computing has seen ..... neapolis, Minnesota. -"?'l.

Identification of dynamic models with aggregate shocks ...
May 23, 2011 - with an application to mortgage default in Colombia ..... To the best of our knowledge, the literature has not yet established general ..... 8Regular commercial banks had exclusive rights to issue checking accounts ..... effect on the

Spatial Competition with Heterogeneous Firms
I know of no analytic solutions with heterogeneous firms and convex costs of .... A producer must design its product and a retailer must build a store. ...... 20 The proofs of proposition 2 and of all subsequent propositions are relegated to App. A.