The name is absent



Proof of Proposition 2. Consider y0 e (0,ζ] and the optimal policy generated by the maximal selection
from X(y). (Under Caa(a,y) + Cay(a,y) ≥ 0, this policy function is non-decreasing in y.) It is sufficient to
show that the optimal path generated by this policy is
strictly decreasing over time. Suppose not. Then
there exists an optimal program (yt,xt,at)0
~ where y1 = f(x0) ≥ y0. This, in turn, implies that x1 ≥x0. Since,
y1 e [y0,f(y0)]
(0,f(ζ)), it follows that x1<y1 = f(x0). Therefore, using Lemma 4, we have
C
a(y0 -Xo, Уо) Dx(xo) + δ[Ca(f(x0)-x1,f(x0))+Cy(f(x0)-x1,f(x0))]fs(x0)

and using Caa(a,y) + Cay(a,y) ≥ 0 and f(x0) ≥ y0 we have

Ca(f(Xθ) - Xo, f(Xo)) ≥Dχ(Xo) + δ[Ca(f(X0)-X1,f(X0))+Cy(f(X0)-X1,f(X0))]fχ(X0
which violates the inequality in the antecedent of the proposition. ■

Proof of Proposition 3. Consider the set of optimal paths generated by the maximal selection from X(y).
It is sufficient to show that complete eradication occurs on every path generated by this selection. From
Lemma 2, we know that this is an non-decreasing function and therefore, every optimal path generated
by this selection is weakly monotone and hence convergent (they are all bounded). Suppose to the
contrary that there is an optimal path generated by the maXimal selection from X(y) which is bounded
away from zero. Then, it must converge to a strictly positive optimal steady state y* = f(X*). Note that
y0 e (0,K) implies that every optimal program is bounded above by K so that x* and y* lie in [0,K]. If
x* e (0,K) then equation (3.1) implies Ca(f(x*)-x*,f(x*)) = Dx(x*) +
δ[Ca(f(x*)-x*,f(x*))+Cy(f(x*)-x*,f(x*))]ft(x*) which contradicts the inequality in the proposition. Also,
y*= K = f(K) is not an optimal steady state as the inequality in the proposition implies Ca(0,K)) < Dx(K)
+ δ[C
a(0,K))+Cy(0,K)]fχ(K) = Dx(K) + δCa(0,K))fχ(K) which implies C>K)) < [Dχ(K)Z(1-δfX(K))].

The latter can be used to show that a program where the control is infinitesimal but greater than zero in
period 0 and equal to zero every period thereafter dominates a program where at=0 in every period.

26



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Nonparametric cointegration analysis
3. CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
4. The name is absent
5. New Evidence on the Puzzles. Results from Agnostic Identification on Monetary Policy and Exchange Rates.
6. Migration and Technological Change in Rural Households: Complements or Substitutes?
7. Educational Inequalities Among School Leavers in Ireland 1979-1994
8. The demand for urban transport: An application of discrete choice model for Cadiz
9. The name is absent
10. The effect of globalisation on industrial districts in Italy: evidence from the footwear sector
11. Pursuit of Competitive Advantages for Entrepreneurship: Development of Enterprise as a Learning Organization. International and Russian Experience
12. The Trade Effects of MERCOSUR and The Andean Community on U.S. Cotton Exports to CBI countries
13. Lending to Agribusinesses in Zambia
14. Benefits of travel time savings for freight transportation : beyond the costs
15. Models of Cognition: Neurological possibility does not indicate neurological plausibility.
16. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance
17. The name is absent
18. Detecting Multiple Breaks in Financial Market Volatility Dynamics
19. Structural Conservation Practices in U.S. Corn Production: Evidence on Environmental Stewardship by Program Participants and Non-Participants
20. A Rare Presentation of Crohn's Disease