Solving the non-convexity problem in some shopping-time and human-capital models

Several works in the shopping-time and in the human-capital literature, due to the nonconcavity of the underlying Hamiltonian, use Örst-order conditions in dynamic optimization to characterize necessity, but not su¢ ciency, in intertemporal problems. In this work I choose one paper in each one of these two areas and show that optimality can be characterized by means of a simple aplication of Arrowís (1968) su¢ ciency theorem.

A note on an application of Arrow's theorem: sufficient conditions for Lucas' inflation and welfare

Bellman's methods for dynamic optimization constitute the present mainstream in economics. However, some results associated with optimal controI can be particularly usefuI in certain problems. The purpose of this note is presenting such an example. The value function derived in Lucas' (2000) shopping-time economy in Infiation and Welfare need not be concave, leading this author to develop numerical analyses to determine if consumer utility is in fact maximized along the balanced path constructed from the first order conditions. We use Arrow's generalization of Mangasarian's results in optimal control theory and develop sufficient conditions for the problem. The analytical conclusions and the previous numerical results are compatible .

Two additions to Lucas's "inflation and welfare"

This work adds to Lucas (2000) by providing analytical solutions to two problems that are solved only numerically by the author. The first part uses a theorem in control theory (Arrow' s sufficiency theorem) to provide sufficiency conditions to characterize the optimum in a shopping-time problem where the value function need not be concave. In the original paper the optimality of the first-order condition is characterized only by means of a numerical analysis. The second part of the paper provides a closed-form solution to the general-equilibrium expression of the welfare costs of inflation when the money demand is double logarithmic. This closed-form solution allows for the precise calculation of the difference between the general-equilibrium and Bailey's partial-equilibrium estimates of the welfare losses due to inflation. Again, in Lucas's original paper, the solution to the general-equilibrium-case underlying nonlinear differential equation is done only numerically, and the posterior assertion that the general-equilibrium welfare figures cannot be distinguished from those derived using Bailey's formula rely only on numerical simulations as well.

Analysis of two-party salary negotiations: factos impeding a mutually-beneficial joint agreement

Business professionals were surveyed to explore both factors associated with negotiation propensity, as well as the strategies used by employees and employers in salary negotiations. The objective is to examine the factors that impede both pasties in reaching a mutually-beneficial joint agreement in salary negotiations. In order to achieve this objective, a review of the negotiations literature was conducted including both. Descriptive literature - present research finding and scientific theory which characterizes negotiation and examines the forces that determine it's course and outcome - as well as a review of the prescriptive literature - in order to develop practical advice given a description of hw negotiators behave. Research result show that, although there is general tendency for employers to leave room in the first offer for negotiation, employees rarely ask for more and generally accept the first offer. The sub-optimal outcome was partially a result of the employees' preferred strategies for negotiation salary: a soft approach focusing on compromised and maintaining the relationship. An analysis of the results combined with the literature explore, demonstrates that both parties exhibited a fixed-pie perspective, focusing on salary as the key issue, which impeded the search for integrative settlements and, mutually beneficial trade-offs.

Testing the optimality of aggregate consumption decisions: is there rule-of-thumb behavior?

Consumption is an important macroeconomic aggregate, being about 70% of GNP. Finding sub-optimal behavior in consumption decisions casts a serious doubt on whether optimizing behavior is applicable on an economy-wide scale, which, in turn, challenge whether it is applicable at all. This paper has several contributions to the literature on consumption optimality. First, we provide a new result on the basic rule-of-thumb regression, showing that it is observational equivalent to the one obtained in a well known optimizing real-business-cycle model. Second, for rule-of-thumb tests based on the Asset-Pricing Equation, we show that the omission of the higher-order term in the log-linear approximation yields inconsistent estimates when lagged observables are used as instruments. However, these are exactly the instruments that have been traditionally used in this literature. Third, we show that nonlinear estimation of a system of N Asset-Pricing Equations can be done efficiently even if the number of asset returns (N) is high vis-a-vis the number of time-series observations (T). We argue that efficiency can be restored by aggregating returns into a single measure that fully captures intertemporal substitution. Indeed, we show that there is no reason why return aggregation cannot be performed in the nonlinear setting of the Pricing Equation, since the latter is a linear function of individual returns. This forms the basis of a new test of rule-of-thumb behavior, which can be viewed as testing for the importance of rule-of-thumb consumers when the optimizing agent holds an equally-weighted portfolio or a weighted portfolio of traded assets. Using our setup, we find no signs of either rule-of-thumb behavior for U.S. consumers or of habit-formation in consumption decisions in econometric tests. Indeed, we show that the simple representative agent model with a CRRA utility is able to explain the time series data on consumption and aggregate returns. There, the intertemporal discount factor is significant and ranges from 0.956 to 0.969 while the relative risk-aversion coefficient is precisely estimated ranging from 0.829 to 1.126. There is no evidence of rejection in over-identifying-restriction tests.