Dynamic Programming with State-Dependent Discounting

John Stachurski; Junnan Zhang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Dynamic Programming with State-Dependent Discounting

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single 'eventual discounting' condition restores Bellman optimality and convergence when discount factors vary by state.

desk verdict Useful sufficiency theory for state-dependent discounting; the main theorems hold up, but the appendixed necessity claim that the condition 'cannot be significantly weakened' is false as stated and needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08800 v4 pith:5TEE5UEY submitted 2019-08-23 econ.GN q-fin.EC

John Stachurski , Junnan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC MSC 90C3990C4091B62

keywords dynamicprogrammingstate-dependentdiscountingeventualBellmanequationspectralradiusrecursiveutilityunboundedrewardspolicyiteration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks when the standard toolkit of infinite-horizon dynamic programming survives state-dependent discounting, where the discount factor is a random process that may even exceed one. The authors show that a single condition, called eventual discounting — the expected product of discount factors over some finite horizon is uniformly below one — is enough to recover the Bellman equation, existence of an optimal policy, Bellman's principle of optimality, and convergence of value iteration and Howard policy iteration. The condition is checkable in practice through the spectral radius of a discount operator, and the paper shows it is nearly necessary in many settings. This matters because modern macro-finance models routinely let discount rates vary with the state, and until now the theory did not cover them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the discount operator (L_β h)(z) = β(z)∫ h(z′)Q(z,dz′), whose spectral radius r(L_β) characterizes eventual discounting: the condition holds exactly when r(L_β) < 1 (Proposition 4.1). In finite irreducible settings this reduces to a Perron–Frobenius eigenvalue or the stationary geometric mean s_β = lim (E ∏ β_t)^{1/n}. This spectral condition does the work by making the Bellman operator and policy operators eventually contracting in the supremum norm, so the standard Banach fixed point and policy iteration arguments apply even though individual β_t may exceed one.

What would settle it

Use the parameterization reported in Section 6.2.4, which the paper computes to have stationary geometric mean s = 1.0168 > 1 so eventual discounting fails, and run value iteration on the Epstein–Zin Bellman equation (28) on a fine grid; if iteration converges to a finite fixed point and an optimal policy exists, then in that recursive-preference setting eventual discounting is not necessary for the standard optimality results, undermining the paper's claim that the condition cannot be significantly weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central theorem (Theorem 2.1) states that for a regular dynamic program whose continuation aggregator H satisfies the Lipschitz bound |H(x,z,x',v)−H(x,z,x',w)| ≤ β(z)∫|v−w| Q(z,dz'), the eventual discounting condition sup_z E^z ∏_{t=0}^{n−1} β_t < 1 for some n implies that the Bellman operator and every policy operator are eventually contracting, the value function is finite, continuous, and the unique fixed point, an optimal policy exists, Bellman's principle of optimality holds, and both value iteration and Howard policy iteration converge. The discount process may take values above one with positive probability, as long as its long-run growth in expectation is below one.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the continuation aggregator's Lipschitz modulus is exactly the exogenous discount process β(z) in inequality (8); if the modulus were a different process — say action-dependent or endogenous — eventual discounting of (β,Q) would not control the Bellman operator, and the proofs of Lemmas A.1–A.2 would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For additively separable problems with bounded rewards, eventual discounting makes value iteration and Howard policy iteration convergent, so optimal policies can be computed numerically in models where the discount factor is state-dependent.
Models that allow discount factors above one, such as New Keynesian zero-lower-bound settings, are admissible whenever the spectral radius of the discount operator stays below one.
Unbounded rewards can be handled by adapting the eventual discounting condition to include growth bounds: for homogeneous problems the condition becomes (24) with an extra α^θ term, and for general unbounded rewards a weighted-norm local contraction setup works.
For Epstein–Zin preferences, the modified condition (29) shows that the elasticity of intertemporal substitution matters: discount-factor volatility becomes increasingly destabilizing as ψ approaches one.
In many settings with bounded rewards, eventual discounting is also necessary for finite lifetime values, so the condition cannot be substantially weakened without breaking the theory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The spectral-radius test could serve as a pre-estimation diagnostic in calibrated macro models: before solving a model with state-dependent discounting, compute r(L_β) from the estimated discount process; values at or above one warn that the optimization problem may be ill-posed rather than economically meaningful.
The framework's reliance on eventual contractivity suggests that a similar condition might be derivable for continuous-time recursive utility models, where the discount operator becomes an infinitesimal generator and the spectral radius is replaced by a growth rate; the paper lists continuous time as an open question.
The Epstein–Zin analysis implies a testable extension: in models where preference-shock volatility is high and ψ is close to one, the 'explosive responses' reported in some applied studies might be artifacts of a failed eventual discounting condition rather than genuine economic mechanisms.
Because the proof uses only the order-preserving and Lipschitz structure of the aggregator, the main theorem might extend to non-Markov discount processes by replacing the kernel Q with conditional distributions and keeping the same spectral-radius formulation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read on Stachurski and Zhang. The core result is worth knowing: under a spectral-radius condition on the state-dependent discount operator, the standard DP machinery—Bellman equation, optimal policy, convergence of VFI and policy iteration—survives even when beta_t exceeds one with positive probability. The eventual discounting condition and its link to r(L_beta) (Prop 4.1) are genuinely new relative to the earlier literature, which either imposed beta <= 1 or was confined to optimal savings. The paper also handles unbounded rewards via homogeneous and local-contraction methods, and extends to Epstein–Zin preferences, with an honest discussion of where necessity is still open.

The sufficiency proofs are careful and complete. I checked the Blackwell-type argument and the iterated bound in Lemmas A.1–A.2; the eventual contracting property with modulus r_beta^n is clean. The numerical spectral radius calculations for Christiano et al., Hills et al., and others are a useful practical contribution.

Now the soft spot. Appendix A.6 claims that, for compact Z and Feller Q, finiteness of the expected discounted sum is equivalent to r(L_beta) < 1. That is not true pointwise. The proof of the r>1 direction invokes compactness of L_beta without justification; for deterministic Feller transitions, L_beta is a composition operator and generally not compact. More importantly, the claim fails for reducible processes. A simple three-state example with an absorbing state where beta < 1 and a two-state cycle with beta > 1 gives r(L_beta) > 1 but finite expected discounted rewards when starting in the absorbing state. So the abstract's claim that the condition 'cannot be significantly weakened' is not supported as written. This does not damage Theorem 2.1, which is a sufficiency result, but the necessity appendix needs a uniform or sup-over-z formulation and explicit hypotheses under which L_beta has the required spectral properties.

My bottom line: the paper is a solid contribution for macro/finance theorists and applied DP users. It deserves a serious referee and, with a revision fixing A.6, should be accepted. I'd take it to reading group and would cite it for the sufficiency condition.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops infinite-horizon dynamic programming with state-dependent discount factors of the form β(Z_t), where {Z_t} is an exogenous Markov process. The central condition is 'eventual discounting': sup_z E^z ∏_{t=0}^{n-1} β_t < 1 for some n. Under a Lipschitz condition on the aggregator (Assumption 2.1), Theorem 2.1 shows that the policy operators T_σ and the Bellman operator T are eventually contracting, that the value function v* is the unique fixed point of T in bcS, that an optimal policy exists, that Bellman's principle of optimality holds, and that both value function iteration and Howard policy iteration converge. The paper connects eventual discounting to the spectral radius of the operator L_β (Proposition 4.1), gives finite-state and AR(1) tests, and extends the theory to unbounded rewards via homogeneous functions and local contractions (Section 5) and to Epstein–Zin preferences (Section 6). The paper also claims a necessity result in Appendix A.6, stated as equivalence between finiteness of expected discounted rewards and r(L_β) < 1.

Significance. If the main results hold, the paper is a useful and nontrivial contribution to dynamic programming theory. Theorem 2.1 is a clean generalization of Blackwell's contraction argument, and the eventual-contraction modulus r_β^n is the right object: the proofs of Lemmas A.1 and A.2 are self-contained and sound. Proposition 4.1, which identifies r(L_β) with the asymptotic geometric mean of the discount process via a local spectral radius argument, is also carefully presented. The paper has clear practical value because it gives a checkable spectral condition for models in which β_t exceeds one with positive probability, and it applies the condition to parameterizations from Christiano et al. (2011), Hills et al. (2019), Hubmer et al. (2020), and Albuquerque et al. (2016). The extensions to homogeneous growth, local contractions, and Epstein–Zin preferences broaden the scope considerably. The main substantive gap is the overstated necessity claim in Appendix A.6 and the corresponding abstract statement that the condition 'cannot be significantly weakened'; this claim needs repair, but it does not affect the soundness of the sufficiency theory.

major comments (2)

[Appendix A.6, Eq. (51)] The claimed equivalence E^z ∑_{t>0} (∏_{i<t} β_i) π_t < ∞ ⇔ r(L_β) < 1 is false pointwise as stated. Consider Z = {p,q,r} with deterministic transitions p→p, q→r, r→q, discount factors β(p) = 1/2, β(q) = 2, β(r) = 6/5, and any reward bounded below by a > 0. Then L_β restricted to {q,r} has spectral radius √(12/5) > 1, so r(L_β) > 1 and eventual discounting fails, yet from initial state p the expected discounted reward is a/(1−1/2) < ∞. A correct necessity statement therefore requires an irreducibility or positive-recurrence assumption, or a uniform condition over initial states, together with additional spectral assumptions that rule out boundary cases. As written, this appendix does not support the abstract's claim that eventual discounting 'cannot be significantly weakened.'
[Appendix A.6, proof of the r(L_β) > 1 direction] The proof invokes Krein–Rutman after the sentence 'By compactness of L_β', but L_β is not compact for a general Feller kernel: deterministic transition maps give composition operators, which need not be compact. No compactness or power-compactness hypothesis is imposed in the paper. The existence of a positive eigenfunction e with L_β e = r(L_β) e therefore requires additional structural conditions (for example, finite Z, or a kernel with a density and an appropriate compact embedding). Since Theorem 2.1's sufficiency proof does not use this step, the main theorem is unaffected, but the advertised necessity result lacks proof as stated.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.4, last paragraph] The phrase 'in many cases, not just sufficient but also necessary' is too vague; once Appendix A.6 is corrected, the paper should specify the exact class of processes for which necessity holds (for example, finite irreducible chains).
[Section 6.1, footnote 21] The augmented state \tilde Z_{t+1} = (Z_{t+1}, Z_t) and the induced kernel \tilde Q on \tilde Z = Z^2 should be defined explicitly in the main text, since the aggregator formula uses \tilde Q(z, dz') with z already augmented.
[Section 5.2, proof of Proposition 5.2] The notation r_β^n in the inequality ‖T^n v − T^n w‖_j ≤ r_β^n ‖v − w‖_j is easy to confuse with the pointwise function β; renaming the eventual-discounting modulus (for example, γ_n) would improve readability.
[Section 6.2.4, Table 2] Please specify the initialization of the simulated paths used to compute s\u005cn, since reproducibility requires knowing whether the paths are started from a fixed state or drawn from a stationary distribution.
[Abstract and Section 7] The abstract states that the condition 'cannot be significantly weakened,' while Section 7 explicitly leaves open how close to necessary the condition is for recursive-preference models; the abstract should be qualified to match the scope of the necessity result actually proved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 2.1 is a self-contained contraction argument from an explicit assumption; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Assumption 2.1 imposes a concrete input: H is Lipschitz with modulus β(z) under the transition kernel Q, and (β, Q) is eventually discounting. Theorem 2.1(a) is then proved by iterating inequality (8) to obtain ||T^n_σ v − T^n_σ w|| ≤ r^β_n ||v−w|| (Lemma A.1, eq. (37)) and the analogous bound for T (Lemma A.2); eventual discounting makes the n-th iterate a contraction. This is an implication with an explicit bound, not a restatement of the definition. The remaining parts of Theorem 2.1 use the contraction mapping theorem, Berge's maximum theorem, and the measurable maximum theorem, none of which are supplied by the paper's own assumptions. The numerical examples use parameter values from Albuquerque et al. (2016), Hills et al. (2019), Hubmer et al. (2020), and Nakata (2016); no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations to Borovička and Stachurski (2020) and Ma et al. (2020) are contextual and do not enter the proofs of the main results. The flagged weaknesses are not circular: Appendix A.6 asserts 'By compactness of Lβ' without a compactness hypothesis and (51) may fail pointwise for reducible chains, but that is a support/correctness gap, and Appendix A.4.2 ends with 'The proof is omitted' for the de Groot et al. specification, which is incompleteness, not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger records the standard functional analysis tools and the explicit assumptions of the model. No free parameters are fitted by the authors in the theoretical results; the numerical examples use parameter values taken from the cited applied studies.

assumptions (7)

standard math Banach contraction mapping theorem and standard fixed point theorems.
Used in Corollary A.3 and Section A.4.2 to establish unique fixed points and convergence of iterations.
standard math Spectral radius results for positive linear operators on Banach lattices (Krasnosel'skii et al. 1972, Theorem 9.1) and Krein-Rutman theorem.
Used in Proposition 4.1 and Appendix A.6 to connect eventual discounting to the spectral radius of L_β and to prove necessity.
standard math Measurable maximum theorem and Berge's maximum theorem (Aliprantis and Border 2006).
Used in Lemma A.2 to ensure continuity of T on bcS and in Theorem 2.1 to obtain a measurable optimal policy.
domain assumption Regularity of the dynamic program: Γ continuous, nonempty, compact-valued; H bounded and measurable, continuous in v.
Stated in Section 2.3; ensures T maps bcS to itself and measurable selection is possible.
domain assumption Feller property of the transition kernel Q.
Assumed in Assumption 2.1 and footnote 9; used to preserve continuity of T on bcS.
domain assumption Lipschitz inequality (8) of Assumption 2.1.
The central condition connecting the discount process to the aggregator; without it the eventual discounting of (β,Q) does not yield convergence.
domain assumption Eventual discounting condition: sup_z E^z ∏_{t=0}^{n-1} β_t < 1 for some n.
The hypothesis of Theorem 2.1 and the focus of Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Programming with State-Dependent Discounting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TEE5UEY

@misc{pith2026190808800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Programming with State-Dependent Discounting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TEE5UEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08800}
}

read the original abstract

This paper extends the core results of discrete time infinite horizon dynamic programming to the case of state-dependent discounting. We obtain a condition on the discount factor process under which all of the standard optimality results can be recovered. We also show that the condition cannot be significantly weakened. Our framework is general enough to handle complications such as recursive preferences and unbounded rewards. Economic and financial applications are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08800 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Simulated time path for {βt} in Hills et al. (2019) We show that, when eventual discounting holds, (i) the value function satisfies the Bellman equation, (ii) an optimal policy exists, (iii) Bellman’s principle of optimality holds, and (iv) value function iteration and Howard policy iteration (Howard, 1960) are both convergent. When βt is constant at β < 1, eventual discounting holds at t = 1, so these results captu… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** r(Lβ) as a function of ρ and σ ; µ = 0.944 To illustrate how the stochastic properties of βt affect the size of r(Lβ), we take the parameterization in Example 4.3 as a benchmark and vary the persistence term ρ and the volatility σ . Other parameters are held constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

Eichenbaum, V

Albuquerque, R., M. Eichenbaum, V. X. Luo, and S. Rebelo (2016): Valuation risk and asset pricing, The Journal of Finance, 71, 2861--2904

work page 2016
[2]

Eichenbaum, D

Albuquerque, R., M. Eichenbaum, D. Papanikolaou, and S. Rebelo (2015): Long-run bulls and bears, Journal of Monetary Economics, 76, S21--S36

work page 2015
[3]

Aliprantis, C. D. and K. C. Border (2006): Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide, Springer

work page 2006
[4]

Alvarez, F. and N. L. Stokey (1998): Dynamic programming with homogeneous functions, Journal of Economic Theory, 82, 167--189

work page 1998
[5]

Beals, R. and T. C. Koopmans (1969): Maximizing stationary utility in a constant technology, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 17, 1001--1015

work page 1969
[6]

(1957): Dynamic programming, Academic Press

Bellman, R. (1957): Dynamic programming, Academic Press

work page 1957
[7]

Hurst, and J

Beraja, M., E. Hurst, and J. Ospina (2016): The aggregate implications of regional business cycles, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

work page 2016
[8]

Bertsekas, D. P. (2013): Abstract dynamic programming, Athena Scientific Belmont, MA

work page 2013

Show all 78 references

[9]

4, Athena Scientific

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2017): Dynamic programming and optimal control, vol. 4, Athena Scientific

2017
[10]

Evans, M

Bhandari, A., D. Evans, M. Golosov, and T. J. Sargent (2013): Taxes, debts, and redistributions with aggregate shocks, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

2013
[11]

Nissen, D

Blackorby, C., D. Nissen, D. Primont, and R. R. Russell (1973): Consistent intertemporal decision making, The Review of Economic Studies, 40, 239--248

1973
[12]

(1965): Discounted dynamic programming, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 226--235

Blackwell, D. (1965): Discounted dynamic programming, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 226--235

1965
[13]

Borovi c ka, J. and J. Stachurski (2020): Necessary and sufficient conditions for existence and uniqueness of recursive utilities, The Journal of Finance

2020
[14]

Campbell, J. Y. (1986): Bond and stock returns in a simple exchange model, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 785--803

1986
[15]

(2018): Recursive equilibrium in Krusell and Smith (1998), Available at SSRN 2863349

Cao, D. (2018): Recursive equilibrium in Krusell and Smith (1998), Available at SSRN 2863349

2018
[16]

Carmon, Y. and A. Shwartz (2009): Markov decision processes with exponentially representable discounting, Operations Research Letters, 37, 51--55

2009
[17]

(2013): Analysis for applied mathematics, vol

Cheney, W. (2013): Analysis for applied mathematics, vol. 208, Springer Science & Business Media

2013
[18]

Eichenbaum, and S

Christiano, L., M. Eichenbaum, and S. Rebelo (2011): When is the government spending multiplier large? Journal of Political Economy, 119, 78--121

2011
[19]

Christiano, L. J., R. Motto, and M. Rostagno (2014): Risk shocks, American Economic Review, 104, 27--65

2014
[20]

Farhi, J

Correia, I., E. Farhi, J. P. Nicolini, and P. Teles (2013): Unconventional fiscal policy at the zero bound, American Economic Review, 103, 1172--1211

2013
[21]

(2006): Order structure and topological methods in nonlinear partial differential equations: Vol

Du, Y. (2006): Order structure and topological methods in nonlinear partial differential equations: Vol. 1: Maximum principles and applications, vol. 2, World Scientific

2006
[22]

Eggertsson, G. B. (2011): What fiscal policy is effective at zero interest rates? NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 25, 59--112

2011
[23]

Eggertsson, G. B. and M. Woodford (2003): Zero bound on interest rates and optimal monetary policy, Brookings papers on economic activity, 2003, 139--211

2003
[24]

Epstein, L. G. and J. A. Hynes (1983): The rate of time preference and dynamic economic analysis, Journal of Political Economy, 91, 611--635

1983
[25]

Fagereng, A., M. B. Holm, B. Moll, and G. Natvik (2019): Saving Behavior Across the Wealth Distribution: The Importance of Capital Gains, Tech. rep., Princeton

2019
[26]

Francis, J. and T. Kompas (2001): Uzawa’s transformation and optimal control problems with variable rates of time preference, Tech. rep., Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University

2001
[27]

Loewenstein, and T

Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O'donoghue (2002): Time discounting and time preference: A critical review, Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351--401

2002
[28]

Luque-V \'a squez, and J

Gonz \'a lez-S \'a nchez, D., F. Luque-V \'a squez, and J. A. Minj \'a rez-Sosa (2019): Zero-Sum Markov Games with Random State-Actions-Dependent Discount Factors: Existence of Optimal Strategies, Dynamic Games and Applications, 9, 103--121

2019
[29]

Hall, R. E. (2017): High discounts and high unemployment, American Economic Review, 107, 305--30

2017
[30]

Hansen, L. P. and J. A. Scheinkman (2009): Long-term risk: An operator approach, Econometrica, 77, 177--234

2009
[31]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2012): Recursive utility in a Markov environment with stochastic growth, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 11967--11972

2012
[32]

Hyogo, and N

Higashi, Y., K. Hyogo, and N. Takeoka (2009): Subjective random discounting and intertemporal choice, Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 1015--1053

2009
[33]

Hyogo, N

Higashi, Y., K. Hyogo, N. Takeoka, and H. Tanaka (2017): Comparative impatience under random discounting, Economic Theory, 63, 621--651

2017
[34]

Nakata, and S

Hills, T., T. Nakata, and S. Schmidt (2016): The risky steady state and the interest rate lower bound, Tech. rep., ECB Working Paper

2016
[35]

Hills, T. S. and T. Nakata (2018): Fiscal multipliers at the zero lower bound: the role of policy inertia, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 50, 155--172

2018
[36]

Krusell, and A

Hubmer, J., P. Krusell, and A. A. Smith (2018): A Comprehensive Quantitative Theory of the US Wealth Distribution, Tech. rep., Yale

2018
[37]

Cruz-Su \'a rez, and S

Ilhuicatzi-Rold \'a n, R., H. Cruz-Su \'a rez, and S. Ch \'a vez-Rodr \'i guez (2017): Markov decision processes with time-varying discount factors and random horizon, Kybernetika, 53, 82--98

2017
[38]

Ja \'s kiewicz, A. and A. S. Nowak (2011): Discounted dynamic programming with unbounded returns: application to economic models, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 378, 450--462

2011
[39]

Justiniano, A. and G. E. Primiceri (2008): The time-varying volatility of macroeconomic fluctuations, American Economic Review, 98, 604--41

2008
[40]

Justiniano, A., G. E. Primiceri, and A. Tambalotti (2010): Investment shocks and business cycles, Journal of Monetary Economics, 57, 132--145

2010
[41]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2011): Investment shocks and the relative price of investment, Review of Economic Dynamics, 14, 102--121

2011
[42]

Karni, E. and I. Zilcha (2000): Saving behavior in stationary equilibrium with random discounting, Economic Theory, 15, 551--564

2000
[43]

Kehoe, P. J., V. Midrigan, and E. Pastorino (2018): Evolution of modern business cycle models: Accounting for the great recession, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32, 141--66

2018
[44]

Kopecky, K. A. and R. M. Suen (2010): Finite state Markov-chain approximations to highly persistent processes, Review of Economic Dynamics, 13, 701--714

2010
[45]

Krasnosel’skii, M. A., G. M. Vainikko, P. P. Zabreiko, Y. B. Rutitskii, and V. Y. Stetsenko (1972): Approximate Solution of Operator Equations, Springer Netherlands

1972
[46]

Krishna, R. V. and P. Sadowski (2014): Dynamic preference for flexibility, Econometrica, 82, 655--703

2014
[47]

Mukoyama, A

Krusell, P., T. Mukoyama, A. S ahin, and A. A. Smith (2009): Revisiting the welfare effects of eliminating business cycles, Review of Economic Dynamics, 12, 393--404

2009
[48]

Krusell, P. and A. A. Smith (1998): Income and wealth heterogeneity in the macroeconomy, Journal of Political Economy, 106, 867--896

1998
[49]

Loewenstein, G. and D. Prelec (1992): Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573--597

1992
[50]

Lucas, R. E. and E. C. Prescott (1974): Equilibrium search and unemployment, Journal of Economic Theory, 7, 188--209

1974
[51]

Stachurski, and A

Ma, Q., J. Stachurski, and A. A. Toda (2020): The income fluctuation problem and the evolution of wealth, Journal of Economic Theory, 187, 105003

2020
[52]

Martins-da Rocha, V. F. and Y. Vailakis (2010): Existence and uniqueness of a fixed point for local contractions, Econometrica, 78, 1127--1141

2010
[53]

Matkowski, J. and A. S. Nowak (2011): On discounted dynamic programming with unbounded returns, Economic Theory, 46, 455--474

2011
[54]

McCall, J. J. (1970): Economics of information and job search, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113--126

1970
[55]

Mehra, R. and R. Sah (2002): Mood fluctuations, projection bias, and volatility of equity prices, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26, 869--887

2002
[56]

Minj \'a rez-Sosa, J. A. (2015): Markov control models with unknown random state--action-dependent discount factors, TOP, 23, 743--772

2015
[57]

(2009): A Note on Cyclical Discount Factors and Labor Market Volatility, Tech

Mukoyama, T. (2009): A Note on Cyclical Discount Factors and Labor Market Volatility, Tech. rep

2009
[58]

M \"u ller, P. and G. Reich (2018): Structural Estimation Using Parametric Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints and Homotopy Path Continuation, Available at SSRN 3303999

2018
[59]

Nakata, T. and H. Tanaka (2016): Equilibrium Yield Curves and the Interest Rate Lower Bound, Tech. rep., FEDS Working Paper

2016
[60]

Pollak, R. A. (1968): Consistent planning, The Review of Economic Studies, 35, 201--208

1968
[61]

Primiceri, G. E., E. Schaumburg, and A. Tambalotti (2006): Intertemporal disturbances, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

2006
[62]

Puterman, M. L. (2014): Markov Decision Processes.: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming, John Wiley & Sons

2014
[63]

Qin, L. and V. Linetsky (2017): Long-term risk: A martingale approach, Econometrica, 85, 299--312

2017
[64]

Rinc \'o n-Zapatero, J. P. and C. Rodr \'i guez-Palmero (2003): Existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Bellman equation in the unbounded case, Econometrica, 71, 1519--1555

2003
[65]

(2011): On the dynamics of unemployment and wage distributions, Econometrica, 79, 1327--1355

Robin, J.-M. (2011): On the dynamics of unemployment and wage distributions, Econometrica, 79, 1327--1355

2011
[66]

(2017): The uncertainty multiplier and business cycles, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 78, 1--25

Saijo, H. (2017): The uncertainty multiplier and business cycles, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 78, 1--25

2017
[67]

(1975): Conditions for optimality in dynamic programming and for the limit of n-stage optimal policies to be optimal, Probability theory and related fields, 32, 179--196

Sch \"a l, M. (1975): Conditions for optimality in dynamic programming and for the limit of n-stage optimal policies to be optimal, Probability theory and related fields, 32, 179--196

1975
[68]

Song, and A

Schorfheide, F., D. Song, and A. Yaron (2018): Identifying Long-Run Risks: A Bayesian Mixed-Frequency Approach, Econometrica, 86, 617--654

2018
[69]

(2005): The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies, American Economic Review, 95, 25--49

Shimer, R. (2005): The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies, American Economic Review, 95, 25--49

2005
[70]

Stokey, N. L., R. E. Lucas, and E. C. Prescott (1989): Recursive methods in economic dynamics, Harvard University Press

1989
[71]

Strotz, R. H. (1955): Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization, The Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165--180

1955
[72]

Toda, A. A. (2018): Wealth distribution with random discount factors, Journal of Monetary Economics

2018
[73]

(1968): Time preference, the consumption function, and optimum asset holdings, Value, capital and growth: papers in honor of Sir John Hicks

Uzawa, H. (1968): Time preference, the consumption function, and optimum asset holdings, Value, capital and growth: papers in honor of Sir John Hicks. The University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh, 485--504

1968
[74]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1969): Time preference and the Penrose effect in a two-class model of economic growth, Journal of Political Economy, 77, 628--652

1969
[75]

--- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1996): An endogenous rate of time preference, the Penrose effect, and dynamic optimality of environmental quality, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, 5770--5776

1996
[76]

Wei, Q. and X. Guo (2011): Markov decision processes with state-dependent discount factors and unbounded rewards/costs, Operations Research Letters, 39, 369--374

2011
[77]

Williamson, S. D. (2019): Low real interest rates and the zero lower bound, Review of Economic Dynamics, 31, 36--62

2019
[78]

(2011): Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3, 1–35

Woodford, M. (2011): Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3, 1–35

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Eichenbaum, V

Albuquerque, R., M. Eichenbaum, V. X. Luo, and S. Rebelo (2016): Valuation risk and asset pricing, The Journal of Finance, 71, 2861--2904

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Eichenbaum, D

Albuquerque, R., M. Eichenbaum, D. Papanikolaou, and S. Rebelo (2015): Long-run bulls and bears, Journal of Monetary Economics, 76, S21--S36

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Aliprantis, C. D. and K. C. Border (2006): Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide, Springer

work page 2006

[4] [4]

Alvarez, F. and N. L. Stokey (1998): Dynamic programming with homogeneous functions, Journal of Economic Theory, 82, 167--189

work page 1998

[5] [5]

Beals, R. and T. C. Koopmans (1969): Maximizing stationary utility in a constant technology, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 17, 1001--1015

work page 1969

[6] [6]

(1957): Dynamic programming, Academic Press

Bellman, R. (1957): Dynamic programming, Academic Press

work page 1957

[7] [7]

Hurst, and J

Beraja, M., E. Hurst, and J. Ospina (2016): The aggregate implications of regional business cycles, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Bertsekas, D. P. (2013): Abstract dynamic programming, Athena Scientific Belmont, MA

work page 2013