Skip to main content

Model Uncertainty, State Uncertainty, and State-Space Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
State-Space Models

Part of the book series: Statistics and Econometrics for Finance ((SEFF,volume 1))

Abstract

State-space models have been increasingly used to study macroeconomic and financial problems. A state-space representation consists of two equations, a measurement equation which links the observed variables to unobserved state variables and a transition equation describing the dynamics of the state variables. In this chapter, we show that a classic linear-quadratic macroeconomic framework which incorporates two new assumptions can be analytically solved and explicitly mapped to a state-space representation. The two assumptions we consider are the model uncertainty due to concerns for model misspecification (robustness) and the state uncertainty due to limited information constraints (rational inattention). We show that the state-space representation of the observable and unobservable can be used to quantify the key parameters on the degree of model uncertainty. We provide examples on how this framework can be used to study a range of interesting questions in macroeconomics and international economics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that here “linear” means that the state transition equation is linear, “quadratic” means that the objective function is quadratic, and “Gaussian” means that the exogenous innovation is Gaussian.

  2. 2.

    We take a small-open economy version of Hall’s model as we’ll use it to address some small-open economy issues in later sectors.

  3. 3.

    It is worth noting that the tax-smoothing hypothesis (TSH) model is an analogy with the permanent income hypothesis (PIH) model in which consumers smooth consumption over time; tax rates respond to permanent changes in the public budgetary burden rather than transitory ones.

  4. 4.

    For example, see Huang and Lin (1993), Ghosh (1995)

  5. 5.

    Following Barro (1979), Bohn (1990), and Huang and Lin (1993), we only need to impose the restriction, \({f}^{{\prime}}\left (\tau \right ) > 0\) and \({f}^{{\prime\prime}}\left (\tau \right ) > 0\), on the loss function, \(f\left (\tau \right )\).

  6. 6.

    n is assumed to be constant.

  7. 7.

    Formally, this setup is a game between the decision-maker and a malevolent nature that chooses the distortion process ν t . \(\vartheta \geq 0\) is a penalty parameter that restricts attention to a limited class of distortion processes; it can be mapped into an entropy condition that implies agents choose rules that are robust against processes which are close to the trusted one. In a later section we will apply an error detection approach to calibrate \(\vartheta\).

  8. 8.

    This will be clearer when we go to the applications in later sections.

  9. 9.

    More generally, agents choose the joint distribution of consumption and current permanent income subject to restrictions about the transition from prior (the distribution before the current signal) to posterior (the distribution after the current signal). The budget constraint implies a link between the distribution of consumption and the distribution of next period permanent income.

  10. 10.

    We regard κ as a technological parameter. If the base for logarithms is 2, the unit used to measure information flow is a “bit,” and for the natural logarithm e the unit is a “nat.” 1 nat is equal to log2 e ≈ 1. 433 bits.  

  11. 11.

    Convergence requires that \(\kappa >\log \left (R\right ) \approx R - 1\); see Luo and Young (2010) for a discussion.

  12. 12.

    Luo, Nie, and Young (2011a) use this approach to study the joint dynamics of consumption, income, and the current account.

  13. 13.

    These illustrations are based on the research by Luo and Young (2010) and Luo, Nie, and Young (2011a, 2011b, 2011c).

  14. 14.

    See Luo, Nie, and Young (2011a) for the proof.

  15. 15.

    It is worth noting that the special case that λ = 1 can be viewed as a representative-agent model in which we do not need to discuss the aggregation issue.

  16. 16.

    For example, Backus, Kehoe, and Kydland (1992) solve a two-country real business cycles model and argue that the puzzle that empirical consumption correlations are actually lower than output correlations is the most striking discrepancy between theory and data.

  17. 17.

    For example, Muth (1960), Lucas (1972), Morris and Shin (2002), and Angeletos and La’O (2009). It is worth noting that this assumption is also consistent with the rational inattention idea that ordinary people only devote finite information-processing capacity to processing financial information and thus cannot observe the states perfectly.

  18. 18.

    See Luo (2008) for details about the welfare losses due to information imperfections within the partial equilibrium permanent income hypothesis framework.

  19. 19.

    Note that θ measures how much uncertainty about the state can be removed upon receiving the new signals about the state.

  20. 20.

    Note that when θ = 1, \(var\left [\xi _{t+1}\right ] = 0\).

  21. 21.

    For example, Adam (2007) found θ = 40% based on the response of aggregate output to monetary policy shocks. Luo (2008) found that if θ = 50%, the otherwise standard permanent income model can generate realistic relative volatility of consumption to labor income.

  22. 22.

    See Luo and Young (2010) for details about the welfare losses due to imperfect observations in the RB model; they are uniformly small.

  23. 23.

    For example, see Svensson (2000), Gali and Monacelli (2005), Walsh (2004), Leitemo and Soderstrom (2008a2008b).

  24. 24.

    For the examples of the model equations describing the inflation and output dynamics in a closed economy, see Leitemo and Soderstrom (2008a).

  25. 25.

    This includes the two versions of the model presented in previous sections which incorporates the model uncertainty due to RB: one uses the regular Kalman filter; the other one assumes that the agent does not trust the Kalman filter either (robust filtering).

  26. 26.

    Formally, one can view risk-sensitive agents as ones who have non-state-separable preferences, as in, but with a value for the intertemporal elasticity of substitution equal to one.

  27. 27.

    Note that the OE becomes

    $$\displaystyle{ \frac{\alpha \theta } {1 -\left (1-\theta \right ){R}^{2}} = \frac{1} {2\vartheta }, }$$

    if we assume that the agents distrust the income process hitting the budget constraint, but trust the RI-induced noise hitting the Kalman filtering equation.

  28. 28.

    HST (1999) derive the observational equivalence result by fixing all parameters, including R, except for the pair \(\left (\alpha,\boldsymbol{\eta }\right )\).

  29. 29.

    As shown in HST (1999), the two models have different implications for asset prices because continuation valuations would alter as one alters \(\left (\alpha,\boldsymbol{\eta }\right )\) within the observationally equivalent set of parameters.

References

  1. Adam, Klaus (2007), “Optimal monetary policy with imperfect common knowledge,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier 54(2), 267–301.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angeletos, George-Marios and Jennifer La’O (2009), “Noisy Business Cycles,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2009, 319–378.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Backus, David K., Patrick J. Kehoe, and Finn E. Kydland (1992), “International Real Business Cycles,” Journal of Political Economy 101(4), 745–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Backus, David K., Bryan R. Routledge, and Stanley E. Zin (2004), “Exotic Preferences forMacroeconomists,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2004, 319–414.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bohn, Henning (1990), Tax Smoothing with Financial Instruments, American Economic Review 80(5), 1217–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gali, J., Monacelli, T., (2005), “Monetary policy and exchange rate volatility in a small open economy,”  Review of Economic Studies 72(3), 702–734.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Barro, Robert J. (1979), “On the Determination of the Public Debt,” Journal of Political Economy 87, 940–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghosh, Atish R. (1995), “Intertemporal Tax-smoothing and the Government Budget Surplus: Canada and the United States,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, 1033–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall, Robert E. (1978), “Stochastic Implications of the Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Political Economy 86(6), 971–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansen, Lars Peter and Thomas J. Sargent (1995), “Discounted Linear Exponential Quadratic Gaussian Control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 40, pp. 968–971.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansen, Lars Peter, Thomas J. Sargent, and Thomas D. Tallarini, Jr. (1999), “Robust Permanent Income and Pricing,” Review of Economic Studies 66(4), 873–907.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hansen, Lars Peter and Thomas J. Sargent (2007), Robustness, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hansen, Lars Peter and Thomas J. Sargent (2007a), Robustness, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hansen, Lars Peter and Thomas J. Sargent (2007b), “Robust Estimation and Control without Commitment,” Journal of Economic Theory 136(1), 1–27.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansen, Lars Peter, Thomas J. Sargent, and Neng Wang (2002), “Robust Permanent Income and Pricing with Filtering,” Macroeconomic Dynamics 6(1), 40–84.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang, Chao-Hsi, Lin, Kenneth S. (1993), “Deficits, Government Expenditures and Tax Smoothing in the United States: 1929–1988,” Journal of Monetary Economics 31, 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacobson, David H. (1973), “Optimal Stochastic Linear Systems with Exponential Performance Criteria and Their Relation to Deterministic Differential Games,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 18, 124–131.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Leitemo, Kai, Ulf Soderstrom (2008), “Robust Monetary Policy in the New Keynesian Framework,” Macroeconomic Dynamics 12 (supplement 1), 126–135.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leitemo, Kai, Ulf Soderstrom (2008), “Robust Monetary Policy in a Small Open Economy,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32, 3218–3252.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Lucas, Robert E., Jr. (1972), “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money,” Journal of Economic Theory 4, 103–24.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Luo, Yulei (2008), “Consumption Dynamics under Information Processing Constraints,” Review of Economic Dynamics 11(2), 366–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Luo, Yulei and Eric R. Young (2010), “Risk-sensitive Consumption and Savings under Rational Inattention,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2(4), 281–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Luo, Yulei, Jun Nie, and Eric R. Young (2011a), “Robustness, Information-processing Constraints, and the Current Account in Small Open Economies,” forthcoming, Journal of International Economics 88(1), 104–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Luo, Yulei, Jun Nie, and Eric R. Young (2011b), “Robust Control, Informational Frictions, and International Consumption Correlations,” Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Luo, Yulei, Jun Nie, and Eric R. Young (2011c), “Model Uncertainty and Intertemporal Tax Smoothing,” Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Morris, Stephen and Hyun Song Shin (2002), “The Social Value of Public Information,” American Economic Review 92, 1521–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Muth, John F. (1960), “Optimal Properties of Exponentially Weighted Forecasts”, Journal of the American Statistical Association 55: 299–306.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Sims, Christopher A. (2003), “Implications of Rational Inattention,” Journal of Monetary Economics 50(3), 665–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sims, Christopher A. (2006), “Rational Inattention: Beyond the Linear-Quadratic Case,” American Economic Review 96(2), 158–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Svensson, L.E.O. (2000), “Open-economy inflation targeting,” Journal of International Economics 50(1), 155–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Walsh, Carl E. (2004), “Robust optimal instrument rules and robust control: An equivalent result,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 36(6), 1105–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Whittle, Peter (1981), “Risk-Sensitive Linear/Quadratic/Gaussian Control,” Advances in Applied Probability 13, 764–777.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Luo thanks the Hong Kong GRF under grant No. 748209 and 749510 and HKU seed funding program for basic research for financial support. All errors are the responsibility of the authors. The views expressed here are the opinions of the authors only and do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City or the Federal Reserve System.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Nie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Solving the Current Account Model Explicitly Under Model Uncertainty

To solve the Bellman equation (4.7), we conjecture that

$$\displaystyle{v\left (s_{t}\right ) = -As_{t}^{2} - Bs_{ t} - C,}$$

where A, B, and C are undetermined coefficients. Substituting this guessed value function into the Bellman equation gives

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} -As_{t}^{2} - Bs_{ t} - C =\max _{c_{t}}\min _{\nu _{t}}\left \{-\frac{1} {2}{\left (\overline{c} - c_{t}\right )}^{2} + \boldsymbol{\eta }E_{ t}\left [\vartheta \nu _{t}^{2} - As_{ t+1}^{2} - Bs_{ t+1} - C\right ]\right \}.& &{}\end{array}$$
(4.48)

We can do the min and max operations in any order, so we choose to do the minimization first.  The first-order condition for ν t is

$$\displaystyle{2\vartheta \nu _{t} - 2AE_{t}\left [\omega _{\zeta }\nu _{t} + Rs_{t} - c_{t}\right ]\omega _{\zeta } - B\omega _{\zeta } = 0,}$$

which means that

$$\displaystyle{ \nu _{t} = \frac{B + 2A\left (Rs_{t} - c_{t}\right )} {2\left (\vartheta -A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}\right )} \omega _{\zeta }. }$$
(4.49)

Substituting (4.49) back into (4.48) gives

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} -As_{t}^{2} - Bs_{ t} - C& =& \max _{c_{t}}\left \{-\frac{1} {2}{\left (\overline{c} - c_{t}\right )}^{2} + \boldsymbol{\eta }E_{ t}\left [\vartheta {\left [\frac{B + 2A\left (Rs_{t} - c_{t}\right )} {2\left (\vartheta -A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}\right )} \omega _{\zeta }\right ]}^{2}\right.\right. {}\\ & & \qquad \quad \quad -\left.\left.As_{t+1}^{2} - Bs_{ t+1} - C\right ]\right \}, {}\\ \end{array}$$

where

$$\displaystyle{ s_{t+1} = Rs_{t} - c_{t} +\zeta _{t+1} +\omega _{\zeta }\nu _{t}. }$$

The first-order condition for c t is

$$\displaystyle{\left (\overline{c} - c_{t}\right ) - 2\boldsymbol{\eta }\vartheta \frac{A\omega _{\zeta }} {\vartheta -A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}}\nu _{t} + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A\left (1 + \frac{A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}} {\vartheta -A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}}\right )\left (Rs_{t} - c_{t} +\omega _{\zeta }\nu _{t}\right ) + \boldsymbol{\eta }B\left (1 + \frac{A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}} {\vartheta -A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}}\right ) = 0.}$$

Using the solution for ν t the solution for consumption is

$$\displaystyle{ c_{t} = \frac{2A\boldsymbol{\eta }R} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A}s_{t} + \frac{\overline{c}\left (1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta \right ) + \boldsymbol{\eta }B} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A}. }$$
(4.50)

Substituting the above expressions into the Bellman equation gives

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} & & -As_{t}^{2} - Bs_{ t} - C {}\\ & =& -\frac{1} {2}{\left ( \frac{2A\boldsymbol{\eta }R} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A}s_{t} + \frac{-2\boldsymbol{\eta }A\overline{c} + \boldsymbol{\eta }B} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A}\right )}^{2} {}\\ & +& \frac{\boldsymbol{\eta }\vartheta \omega _{\zeta }^{2}} {{\left (2\left (\vartheta -A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}\right )\right )}^{2}}{\left (\frac{2AR\left (1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta \right )} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A} s_{t} + B -\frac{2\overline{c}\left (1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta \right )A + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }AB} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A} \right )}^{2} {}\\ & -& \boldsymbol{\eta }A\left ({\left ( \frac{R} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A}s_{t} -\frac{-B\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2c + 2B\boldsymbol{\eta }} {2\left (1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A\right )}\right )}^{2} +\omega _{ \zeta }^{2}\right ) {}\\ & -& \boldsymbol{\eta }B\left ( \frac{R} {1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A}s_{t} -\frac{-B\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2c + 2B\boldsymbol{\eta }} {2\left (1 - A\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta + 2\boldsymbol{\eta }A\right )}\right ) -\boldsymbol{\eta }C. {}\\ \end{array}$$

Given η R = 1, collecting and matching terms, the constant coefficients turn out to be

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} A& =& \frac{R\left (R - 1\right )} {2 - R\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\vartheta },{}\end{array}$$
(4.51)
$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} B& =& - \frac{R\overline{c}} {1 - R\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/\left (2\vartheta \right )},{}\end{array}$$
(4.52)
$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} C& =& \frac{R} {2\left (1 - R\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/2\vartheta \right )}\omega _{\zeta }^{2} + \frac{R} {2\left (1 - R\omega _{\zeta }^{2}/2\vartheta \right )\left (R - 1\right )}{\overline{c}}^{2}.{}\end{array}$$
(4.53)

Substituting (4.51) and (4.52) into (4.50) yields the consumption function. Substituting (4.53) into the current account identity and using the expression for s t yields the expression for the current account.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Luo, Y., Nie, J., Young, E.R. (2013). Model Uncertainty, State Uncertainty, and State-Space Models. In: Zeng, Y., Wu, S. (eds) State-Space Models. Statistics and Econometrics for Finance, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7789-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics