Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (27)
- Part of Periodical (20)
- Article (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (51)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (51) (remove)
Keywords
- Social System (14)
- Demography (11)
- Pension Insurance (11)
- Macro Finance (9)
- Pension (9)
- Household Finance (8)
- welfare (5)
- Covid-19 (4)
- ECB (4)
- Monetary Policy (4)
Institute
"A groundbreaking decision"
(2018)
On average, "young" people underestimate whereas "old" people overestimate their chances to survive into the future. We adopt a Bayesian learning model of ambiguous survival beliefs which replicates these patterns. The model is embedded within a non-expected utility model of life-cycle consumption and saving. Our analysis shows that agents with ambiguous survival beliefs (i) save less than originally planned, (ii) exhibit undersaving at younger ages, and (iii) hold larger amounts of assets in old age than their rational expectations counterparts who correctly assess their survival probabilities. Our ambiguity-driven model therefore simultaneously accounts for three important empirical findings on household saving behavior.
Based on a cognitive notion of neo-additive capacities reflecting likelihood insensitivity with respect to survival chances, we construct a Choquet Bayesian learning model over the life-cycle that generates a motivational notion of neo-additive survival beliefs expressing ambiguity attitudes. We embed these neo-additive survival beliefs as decision weights in a Choquet expected utility life-cycle consumption model and calibrate it with data on subjective survival beliefs from the Health and Retirement Study. Our quantitative analysis shows that agents with calibrated neo-additive survival beliefs (i) save less than originally planned, (ii) exhibit undersaving at younger ages, and (iii) hold larger amounts of assets in old age than their rational expectations counterparts who correctly assess their survival chances. Our neo-additive life-cycle model can therefore simultaneously accommodate three important empirical findings on household saving behavior.
Alexander Ludwig: The discussion about lower delayed retirement credits in the German public pension system misses the point. Instead, it would be more important to increase both, delayed retirement credits and early retirement penalties, and to link them to the longer life expectancy of the working population.
Projected demographic changes in industrialized and developing countries vary in extent and timing but will reduce the share of the population in working age everywhere. Conventional wisdom suggests that this will increase capital intensity with falling rates of return to capital and increasing wages. This decreases welfare for middle aged asset rich households. This paper takes the perspective of the three demographically oldest European nations — France, Germany and Italy — to address three important adjustment channels to dampen these detrimental effects of aging in these countries: investing abroad, endogenous human capital formation and increasing the retirement age. Our quantitative finding is that endogenous human capital formation in combination with an increase in the retirement age has strong implications for economic aggregates and welfare, in particular in the open economy. These adjustments reduce the maximum welfare losses of demographic change for households alive in 2010 by about 2.2 percentage points in terms of a consumption equivalent variation.
We develop a two-sector incomplete markets integrated assessment model to analyze the effectiveness of green quantitative easing (QE) in complementing fiscal policies for climate change mitigation. We model green QE through an outstanding stock of private assets held by a monetary authority and its portfolio allocation between a clean and a dirty sector of production. Green QE leads to a partial crowding out of private capital in the green sector and to a modest reduction of the global temperature by 0.04 degrees of Celsius until 2100. A moderate global carbon tax of 50 USD per tonne of carbon is 4 times more effective.