On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making



x and the state of the world is given by s. If x is the real interest rate, then
the factor s represents the sensitivity of the economy’s in
flation rate to the real
interest rate, a number likely to be unknown to the policy maker. Moreover,
the policy maker might be unable to assign probabilities to the various values
of s.

For simplicity, suppose that the desired target inflation rate is π* = 2 and
that there are only two potential multipliers
si < swith si = 1 and s= 3.

The loss functions associated for each of these multipliers are shown in figure
1. The dotted line in the graph indicates the maximum loss associated with
each action. Figure 1 clearly shows that the robust decision that minimizes the
maximum loss is given by
x* = 1.4

Suppose a Bayesian central bank assigns equal probability to each of the
two multipliers s
(i = l,h). The optimal Bayesian decision is then given by
x
* = 0.8.

The Bayesian decision maker reacts less aggressively than the robust decision
maker. This is the case because the Bayesian trades o
ff the gains and losses
across the di
fferent realizations of s. At the robust decision (x = 1) the loss
functions in
figure 1 have different absolute slope coefficients depending on the
value of
sl (i = l,h). Therefore, the Bayesian has an incentive to decrease the
interest rate below 1 since the gains made for the realization s
will exceed the
losses for realizations s
i, given the prior probabilities assigned to these states.

When the Bayesian’s objective function is subjected to increasingly convex
transformations through
Tk () risk aversion increases. This implies that the
gains for the state s
will be appreciated less relative to the potential losses
for state s
i. Graphically one can interpret this as figure 1 being scaled in the
direction of the у-axis with each point being scaled by a factor that is increasing
with its distance from the X-axis. As a result, the slope of T(x, s
i) to the left
of x = 1 increases much faster than the absolute value of the slope of T(x, s
)
to the left of this point. This pushes the Bayesian decision into the direction of
the robust decision.

Figure 2 shows how the Bayesian decision approaches the robust decision
as
к increases, which suggests a convenient way to calculate (approximately)
robust decisions.5

4Since there is no uncertainty about the sign of the parameters s the optimal robust decision
coincides with the optimal decision under certainty equivalence, as noted by Onatski (2000).

5The speed of convergence will depend, amongst other things, on the Bayesian’s prior.



More intriguing information

1. Wirtschaftslage und Reformprozesse in Estland, Lettland, und Litauen: Bericht 2001
2. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
3. ASSESSMENT OF MARKET RISK IN HOG PRODUCTION USING VALUE-AT-RISK AND EXTREME VALUE THEORY
4. Mean Variance Optimization of Non-Linear Systems and Worst-case Analysis
5. IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING AID PROGRAMS TO U.S. AGRICULTURE
6. Ronald Patterson, Violinist; Brooks Smith, Pianist
7. The Formation of Wenzhou Footwear Clusters: How Were the Entry Barriers Overcome?
8. The name is absent
9. INSTITUTIONS AND PRICE TRANSMISSION IN THE VIETNAMESE HOG MARKET
10. On the Real Exchange Rate Effects of Higher Electricity Prices in South Africa
11. The name is absent
12. The Integration Order of Vector Autoregressive Processes
13. The name is absent
14. Creating a 2000 IES-LFS Database in Stata
15. The name is absent
16. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
17. Exchange Rate Uncertainty and Trade Growth - A Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear (Forecasting) Models
18. EMU: some unanswered questions
19. Getting the practical teaching element right: A guide for literacy, numeracy and ESOL teacher educators
20. Aktive Klienten - Aktive Politik? (Wie) Läßt sich dauerhafte Unabhängigkeit von Sozialhilfe erreichen? Ein Literaturbericht