Ricardian Equivalence Under Asymmetric Information

Kent A. Smetters, Shin’ichi Nishiyama
{"title":"Ricardian Equivalence Under Asymmetric Information","authors":"Kent A. Smetters, Shin’ichi Nishiyama","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1706214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several empirical studies have found that extended household units do not appear to be highly altruistically linked, thereby violating the very premise of the Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis (REH). This finding has a very strong implication for the effectiveness of fiscal policies that change the allocation of resources between generations. We build a two-sided altruistic-linkage model in which private transfers are made in the presence of two types of shocks: an “observable” shock that is public information (for example, a public redistribution like debt or pay-as-you-go social security) and an “unobservable” shock that is private information (for example, individual wage innovations). Parents and children observe each other’s total income but not each other’s effort level. In the second-best solution, unobservable shocks are only partially shared, whereas, for any utility function satisfying a condition derived herein, observable shocks are fully shared. The model, therefore, can generate the low degree of risk sharing found in previous empirical studies, but REH still holds.","PeriodicalId":80976,"journal":{"name":"Comparative labor law journal : a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania","volume":"105 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative labor law journal : a publication of the U.S. National Branch of the International Society for Labor Law and Social Security [and] the Wharton School, and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1706214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several empirical studies have found that extended household units do not appear to be highly altruistically linked, thereby violating the very premise of the Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis (REH). This finding has a very strong implication for the effectiveness of fiscal policies that change the allocation of resources between generations. We build a two-sided altruistic-linkage model in which private transfers are made in the presence of two types of shocks: an “observable” shock that is public information (for example, a public redistribution like debt or pay-as-you-go social security) and an “unobservable” shock that is private information (for example, individual wage innovations). Parents and children observe each other’s total income but not each other’s effort level. In the second-best solution, unobservable shocks are only partially shared, whereas, for any utility function satisfying a condition derived herein, observable shocks are fully shared. The model, therefore, can generate the low degree of risk sharing found in previous empirical studies, but REH still holds.
非对称信息下的李嘉图等价
一些实证研究发现,扩大的家庭单位似乎并没有高度利他的联系,从而违反了李嘉图等价假设(REH)的前提。这一发现对改变代际资源分配的财政政策的有效性具有非常重要的意义。我们建立了一个双边利他联系模型,其中私人转移是在两种冲击存在的情况下进行的:一种“可观察的”冲击是公共信息(例如,债务或现收现付社会保障等公共再分配),一种“不可观察的”冲击是私人信息(例如,个人工资创新)。父母和孩子会观察对方的总收入,但不会观察对方的努力程度。在次优解中,不可观察的冲击仅部分共享,而对于满足本文导出的条件的任何效用函数,可观察的冲击是完全共享的。因此,该模型可以产生较低程度的风险分担在以往的实证研究中,但REH仍然成立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信