Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2402.08905

Time preference, wealth and utility inequality: A microeconomic interaction and dynamic macroeconomic model connection approach

Abstract

Based on interactions between individuals and others and references to social norms, this study reveals the impact of heterogeneity in time preference on wealth distribution and inequality. We present a novel approach that connects the interactions between microeconomic agents that generate heterogeneity to the dynamic equations for capital and consumption in macroeconomic models. Using this approach, we estimate the impact of changes in the discount rate due to microeconomic interactions on capital, consumption and utility and the degree of inequality. The results show that intercomparisons with others regarding consumption significantly affect capital, i.e. wealth inequality. Furthermore, the impact on utility is never small and social norms can reduce this impact. Our supporting evidence shows that the quantitative results of inequality calculations correspond to survey data from cohort and cross-cultural studies. This study's micro-macro connection approach can be deployed to connect microeconomic interactions, such as exchange, interest and debt, redistribution, mutual aid and time preference, to dynamic macroeconomic models.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Takeshi Kato. 2024-02-14. Time preference, wealth and utility inequality: A microeconomic interaction and dynamic macroeconomic model connection approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08905

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Local Media and the Shaping of Social Norms: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak

Media's influence on norms and behavior is widely recognized. Less is known about the role played by media being local. I examine this in a high-stakes context, the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. I exploit quasi-random variation in access to radio and the timing of a public-health campaign aired on community radio. I find that 12-17% of Ebola cases could have been prevented if places with access to a neighboring community radio station had instead had their own. Impacts are driven by radio being local rather than by ethno-linguistic belonging. Local media facilitates coordination in behaviors observed and sanctioned locally.

econ.GN

Productivity Shocks and Input Misallocation: A Decomposition

This paper asks how much input misallocation productivity uncertainty generates and at which stage of input decisions it arises. I separate revenue productivity by when each component is revealed and trace each into the gap between an input's marginal revenue product and its price. In six European countries, shocks revealed after an input is committed account for 20 percent of capital gap dispersion and 5 percent of labor gap dispersion. An unanticipated one percent rise in productivity raises the capital gap by 0.92 percent and the labor gap by 0.19 percent, because most of the shock passes into the wage.

econ.GN

When Do Type-Specific Wages Buffer Distributional Incidence in TANK?

When do relative wages buffer the unequal incidence of aggregate shocks? I derive a consumption-gap decomposition and a present-value condition for partial offset in a TANK model. An extension separates wage-setting demand elasticity from substitution between labor segments and allows each segment to contain both financial types. With a zero inherited wage gap and a same-sign discounted wedge, substitution above one gives offsetting earnings reallocation; substitution below one gives amplification. The channel disappears when financial types have identical segment exposure. Numerical experiments assess these mechanisms, shock persistence, policy feedback, and aggregate-IRF matching. In the nested perfect-alignment monetary benchmark, the peak consumption gap is about two-fifths smaller under type-specific wages than under the common-wage closure. These are conditional model comparisons, not empirical effect estimates or welfare rankings.

econ.GN