Commitment vs. Flexibility
43 Pages Posted: 30 Nov 2003
There are 2 versions of this paper
Commitment vs. Flexibility
Commitment vs. Flexibility
Date Written: November 15, 2003
Abstract
This paper studies the optimal trade-off between commitment and flexibility in an intertemporal consumption/savings choice model. Individuals expect to receive relevant information regarding their own situation and tastes - generating a value for flexibility - but also expect to suffer from temptations - generating a value for commitment. The model combines the representations of preferences for flexibility introduced by Kreps (1979) with its recent antithesis for commitment proposed by Gul and Pesendorfer (2002), which nests the hyperbolic discounting model. We set up and solve a mechanism design problem that optimizes over the set of consumption/saving options available to the individual each period. We characterize the conditions under which the solution takes a simple threshold form where minimum savings policies are optimal. Our analysis is also relevant for other issues such as situations with externalities or the problem faced by a paternalistic planner, which may be important for thinking about some regulations such as forced minimum schooling laws.
Keywords: Banking and credit, English Industrial Revolution, interest rate determination, credit rationing, technological change and learning.
JEL Classification: D82, E21, E61, D91, H55
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence
By Raj Chetty, Adam Looney, ...
-
By Per Krusell, Burhanettin Kuruscu, ...
-
By Manuel Amador, Iván Werning, ...
-
Contracting with Diversely Naive Agents
By Kfir Eliaz and Ran Spiegler
-
Equilibrium Welfare and Government Policy with Quasi-Geometric Discounting
By Per Krusell, Burhanettin Kuruscu, ...
-
Nonlinear Pricing with Self-Control Preferences
By Susanna Esteban, Eiichi Miyagawa, ...
-
Bounded Rationality and Socially Optimal Limits on Choice in a Self-Selection Model