[雙語翻譯]--外文翻譯--行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)和宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)模型（英文）

1、Behavioral economics and macroeconomic modelsJohn C. Driscoll a, Steinar Holden b,?a Federal Reserve Board, 20th and Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20551, USA b Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Box 1095

2、, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norwaya r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 17 September 2012Accepted 23 May 2014Available online 18 June 2014JEL classification:E2E3D8Keywords:Behavioral macroeconomicsNew Keynesian modela

3、 b s t r a c tOver the past 20 years, macroeconomists have incorporated more and more results frombehavioral economics into their models. We argue that doing so has helped fixed deficien-cies with standard approaches to

4、modeling the economy—for example, the counterfactualabsence of inertia in the standard New Keynesian model of economic fluctuations. We sur-vey efforts to use behavioral economics to improve some of the underpinnings of

5、the NewKeynesian model—specifically, consumption, the formation of expectations and determina-tion of wages and employment that underlie aggregate supply, and the possibility of multi-ple equilibria and asset price bubbl

6、es. We also discuss more broadly the advantages anddisadvantages of using behavioral economics features in macroeconomic models.? 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionOver the past 20 years, researchers

7、have incorporated an increasing number of results from behavioral economics into macroeconomic models. There are two main reasons for this change. First, it has become clear to macroeconomists that mod- els based on assu

8、mptions of optimizing behavior in many cases have difficulty accounting for key real-world observations. Hence researchers have used behavioral economics assumptions with the aim of making their model predictions better

9、fit the data. Early attempts to do this were criticized as being ad hoc. The force of this criticism has been reduced by the second reason for incorporating behavioral economics results into macroeconomics: cognitive psy

10、chologists and experimental econ- omists have documented a number of systematic deviations between the decisions of human beings and those of the ‘‘eco- nomic man.’’The economics profession has widely, though by no means

11、 universally, acknowledged the empirical support for puzzles that can be explained by behavioral features. Moreover, behavioral features have been introduced in many parts of macro- economics. Where have these developmen

12、t led us? Which assumptions should one now make when analyzing macroeco- nomic questions? The aim of this paper is to provide a selective survey of the implications of insights from behavioral economics for macroeconomic

13、 models.We argue that the insights from behavioral economics have led to important progress in our understanding of macroeco- nomic phenomena by allowing us to explain more aspects of real world behavior than we could wi

14、th the more restrictive theoretical framework that most economists have been using. Some behavioral assumptions that have already been imple- mented in macroeconomic models, such as fairness considerations, seem especial

15、ly promising to us. In other cases, we sus-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2014.05.0040164-0704/? 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.? Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22855156; fax: +47 22855035.E-mail addresses:

16、John.C.Driscoll@frb.gov (J.C. Driscoll), Steinar.holden@econ.uio.no (S. Holden).Journal of Macroeconomics 41 (2014) 133–147Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Macroeconomicsjournal homepage: www.elsevier.

17、com/locate/jmacromonetary policy, and the AS curve, respectively.3 The model has a steady state output gap and inflation rate of zero, and realinterest rate equal to the Wicksellian level. In the short run, the model can

18、 be used to trace the effects of shocks on the outputgap, inflation, and real and nominal interest rates.While the model has been successful in explaining broad features of the response of real variables to monetary poli

19、cy, it also has a number of deficiencies. One key problem is that the model displays a lack of inertia; shocks have immediate effects, which dissipate quickly. To see this, note that a shock in period t will only have ef

20、fects in that period—in subsequent periods, the levels of the endogenous variables only depend on each other, current shocks, and expected future shocks. This complete lack of persistence arises from the absence of lagge

21、d inflation or output gap terms in the IS or AS equations—either directly, or indirectly through expectations which may depend on them. This prediction is strongly contrary to empirical evi- dence that, for example, the

22、real effects of monetary policy shocks are both delayed and long-lasting.A second problem, noted by Ball (1994) and Mankiw (2001), is that the aggregate supply schedule implies that inflation is expected to fall in a boo

23、m – according to (3), when the output gap ~ yt > 0, pt > Etptþ1. This feature is inconsistent with evi- dence supporting the NAIRU, that inflation increases when output is high relative to the natural rate. Ba

24、ll (1994) looks at this issue from the perspective of credibility of the central bank; he shows that the New Keynesian models implies that credible disinflations should be accompanied by expansions, but provides evidence

25、 that actual disinflations have been associated with recessions.These problems have led those who wish to use such models with an unappealing choice: use this model with theoretical support but empirical deficiencies, or

26、 alter the model so that it better fits the data. Some researchers have taken the latter course—e.g. Rudebusch (2002). A preferable solution would be to find models with microeconomic support which follow the macroeconom

27、ic data. Fuhrer and Moore (1995) suggested a model where agents care about relative real wages (for a cri- tique, see Holden and Driscoll, 2003). A more common formulation is a hybrid model, where some agents are forward

28、-look- ing and other agents are backward-looking (e.g. Gali and Gertler, 1999). While this model clearly has attractive elements, it has also been heavily criticized as being inconsistent with evidence; specifically, the

29、 forward-looking part is said to be empirically invalid (see Rudd and Whelan, 2007; Gali et al., 2005; Bårdsen and Nymoen, 2009).Researchers have increasingly turned to behavioral economics to find microeconomic fou

30、ndations that generate better macroeconomic empirical predictions. That has largely involved exploring different models of consumption (given the for- mulation of the New Keynesian IS curve), different ways of thinking o

31、f expectations formation, or different models of nom- inal wage determination.4 We explore all three topics below in the next two sections, and further use the discussion ofconsumption to examine longer-run consumption a

32、nd savings choices.3. Consumption3.1. The consumption Euler equation and short-run behaviorOne of the areas where behavioral economics has had the greatest impact is in the study of consumption by households. The standar

33、d consumption Euler equation approach pioneered by Hall (1978) has been unable to explain key aspects of actual behavior. According to the permanent income hypothesis, consumption should be a purely forward-looking varia

34、ble, depending on the net wealth of the consumer, including expected future labor income. Thus, consumption should respond instantaneously to new information about expected future income, but be much less responsive to c

35、hanges in current dis- posable income, in so far as the latter does not reveal information about future income. However, empirical evidence shows that consumption respond much less to news, and that as result, consumptio

36、n exhibits ‘‘excess smoothness’’ (Campbell and Deaton, 1989). Consumption also exhibits ‘‘excess sensitivity’’ to current income. Both of these results are largely confirmed by experimental evidence, as surveyed by Duffy

37、 (2012)—although it should also be noted that some experimenters find that other predictions of this theory, such as the response of consumption to changes in discount or interest rates, have support.One traditional beha

38、vioral explanation for excess smoothness is habit formation among consumers, as in Pollak (1970), Abel (1990), and Fuhrer (2000). Habit formation may arise from the endowment effect—a result from cognitive psychology exp

39、eriments in which individuals’ possession of goods is shown to increase their valuation of them–, as shown in Loewenstein and Adler (1995). It is widely used in macroeconomics—its usage antedating the growth in behaviora

40、l econom- ics in the past few decades – and research has also shown that it has important implications also for other economic issues, like the equity premium puzzle (Constantinides, 1990). These models imply that the co

41、nsumption Euler equation underlying the New Keynesian IS curve relate the ratio of consumption to the habit or reference level across adjacent periods, implying that Eq. (1) will have lagged output terms. Using this as t

42、he basis for an alternative New Keynesian IS curve has the effect of increasing the persistence of the effect of shocks on output, by changing the reference level of consumption. This is the approach taken by Fuhrer (200

43、0), who finds that including habit formation, in the sense that consumers’ utility in part3 This is a version of the model linearized around a steady-state with zero inflation. The model may be extended to the case of ha

44、ving a positive rate ofinflation.4 This begs the question of why there are so few behavioral macroeconomic models of investment. The use of the consumption Euler equation as motivationfor the New Keynesian IS curve is in

45、 part due to analytical convenience; it serves as a way of introducing interest sensitivity into the IS curve without having toinvoke more complicated investment models.J.C. Driscoll, S. Holden / Journal of Macroeconomic