Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case



(1b) πt(zt) Γ[πt-1(zt-1), zt].

Let Π(x0 , z0) denote the set of plans that are feasible from (x0 , z0). This set is
nonempty if the correspondence Γ is nonempty and a certain measurability constraint is
met.

Assumption 1. Γ is nonempty-valued and the graph of Γ is (X × X × Z)-measurable.
In addition, Γ has a measurable selection; that is, there exists a measurable function
h : (X, Z) → X such that h(x, z) Γ (x, z) for all (x, z) S.

Under this assumption, the set Π(x0, z0) is nonempty for all (x0, z0) S.6 A plan π
constructed by using the same measurable selection h from Γ in every period t is said to
be stationary or Markov, since the action it prescribes for each period
t depends only on
the state [
πt-1(zt-1), zt] in that period. Nonstationary plans can be constructed by using
different measurable selections
ht in each period. Let a feasible plan and the transition
function
Q on (Z, Z) be given. We want to calculate the total, discounted, expected
returns associated with this plan. Given the initial state (
x0 , z0) S, we define the
following probability measures
μt(z0, ∙) : Zt → [0,1]:

μt(zo, Z)


Z1 ..  Zt-1   Zt


Q(zt-1, dzt)Q(zt-2, dzt-1)..Q(z0, dz1),


t N.


The domain of the per-period return function F is the set A, the graph of Γ. Then we
can define the set A as:

A = {C X×X×Z : C A}.

Under Assumption 1, A is a σ-algebra. Furthermore, if F is A-measurable, then for any
(
x0, z0) S and any π Π(x0, z0),

F [πt-1(zt-1), πt(zt), zt] is Z t -measurable, t N.

This rationalizes our next assumption.

Assumption 2. F : A R is A-measurable, and either (a) or (b) holds.

(a) F ≥ 0 or F ≤ 0

(b) For each (x0, z0) S and each plan π Π,

F[πt-1(zt-1), πt(zt), zt] is μt-integrable, t N,

and the limit

F[x0, π0, z0] +


lim

n→∞


n

t=1 Z


βtF[t-i(zt-1), ∏t(zt), zt]μt(xo, dzt)


exists (although it may be plus or minus infinity).

Assumption 2 ensures that, for each (x0, z0) S, we can define the functions un (∙, x0, z0) :
Π(
x0,z0) →R,n N0, by:

u0 (π, x0, z0)

un (π, x0, z0)


F[x0, π0, z0],


F[x0, π0,


n

z0]+

t 1 Zt


βtF [t-i(zt-1),∏t (zt),zt] μt(xo,dzt).


6A proof of this result can be found in Lucas and Stokey (1989), page 243.

14



More intriguing information

1. Industrial districts, innovation and I-district effect: territory or industrial specialization?
2. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
3. Legal Minimum Wages and the Wages of Formal and Informal Sector Workers in Costa Rica
4. The Employment Impact of Differences in Dmand and Production
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models
8. Policy Formulation, Implementation and Feedback in EU Merger Control
9. Om Økonomi, matematik og videnskabelighed - et bud på provokation
10. Linking Indigenous Social Capital to a Global Economy