Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. The ideas of Chapter 9 are extended to cases where Ricardian equivalence may not
hold, and government debt can matter.
2. Two key credit market frictions are asymmetric information and limited commitment.
There is asymmetric information when participants in a particular market, or the two
parties to a particular exchange have different information. In this chapter we are
particularly interested in asymmetric information in credit markets – situations where
borrowers know more about their credit-worthiness than do lenders. Limited
commitment refers to situations where the party to a particular contract is not
committed to fulfilling the terms of that contract in the future. In loan contracts,
limited commitment means that the borrower always has the option of not repaying
the loan in the future. Lenders use collateral to offset the negative effects of limited
commitment.
3. Asymmetric information and limited commitment are important for financial crises.
During a financial crisis, there is more uncertainty in credit markets, which increases
interest rate spreads and reduces lending and consumption. As well, the value of
collateral falls, which also reduces lending and consumption.
4. There are two kinds of social security programs – pay-as-you-go and fully funded.
The rationale for social security is studied, as well as the potential economic benefits.
1. This chapter has been broken off from Chapter 9, though most of the ideas were in the
third edition.
2. New: “Theory Confronts the Data: Asymmetric Information and Interest Rate
Spreads”
3. Charts and tables have been updated to reflect new data.
TEACHING GOALS
Credit market frictions and social security may not appear to be related issues, so it is
important to stress that this chapter extends the ideas of Chapter 9, by considering
instances where credit markets are not perfect. In a world with frictionless credit markets
(as considered in Chapter 9), there would be no financial crises or social security, for
example.
The first key idea is that credit market frictions are typically reflected, in our two-period
model, in a kinked budget constraint for the consumer. The chapter begins by simply
considering a kinked budget constraint, where the consumer borrowers at a higher interest
rate than he or she receives as a lender, without worrying about why that may be so.
Then, asymmetric information is introduced, to show how that leads to the kinked budget
constraint, and this leads naturally to issues related to the financial crisis, particularly the
increase in interest rate spreads, which in this instance is explained by an increase in
credit market uncertainty.
With limited commitment, we again obtain a kinked budget constraint, but now the
budget constraint shifts in an interesting way with a decrease in the value of collateral.
The drop in housing prices in the United States was a key element of the financial crisis,
and the model shows how this can be connected to a decrease in the demand for
consumption goods.
Finally, the chapter considers social security systems – pay-as-you-go and fully-funded.
The model is a simplification of an overlapping generations model, but the idea is the
same. Social security can be welfare-enhancing for everyone, so long as the population
grows at a sufficiently high rate. Fully-funded social security is harder to justify
economically, however. If this type of program is simply forced savings, then it cannot
make anyone better off, as it removes choice. However, social security can always be
justified by appealing to commitment, in that people may not save adequately if they
know that the government will always be willing to look after them old age.
Encourage students to think about the credit market frictions that exist in the world.
Individuals cannot borrow all they would like to at market interest rates; we cannot
borrow at the same interest rates at which we lend; consumers, firms, and governments
sometimes default on their debts; collateral is used in lending contracts; borrowers
sometimes have better information than do lenders about their credit-worthiness.
The financial crisis occurred recently, so students may remember some of the key details
of what happened. Get the students to recall what was happening in credit markets in the
world during the crisis, so that these details can be related to the models studied in the
chapter. Recall that interest rate spreads increased, lending contracted, and there were
credit market “freezes” in some segments of the market. Students should be encouraged
to think about the implications of this for consumption expenditure.
Students should be familiar with at least the existence of social security programs in the
world, and particularly the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). A discussion could start with the
details of the CPP and how it is financed. What reasons could we think of for the
existence of social security? Is this simply income redistribution, or is there something
deeper going on here. Why would private credit markets fail to the extent that social
security might be welfare-enhancing?
Problems
1. In this economy, good borrowers and lenders always pay their taxes. In the current
period, bad borrowers take out loans, so as to mimic good borrowers, and they
likewise pay their taxes, so as not to reveal themselves as bad. However, in the future
period bad borrowers do not pay their taxes. Therefore, if t and t’ are, respectively,
the taxes paid by lenders and good borrowers, the government’s present-value budget
constraint is
Here, r is the interest rate that the government pays on its debt, which is the same as
the interest rate received by lenders. However, all borrowers pay the interest rate
1+ r − a
r2 = ,
a
which includes a default premium. Now, if Ricardian equivalence holds, then given
the market interest rate, if the government changes the timing of taxes this will leave
everyone’s wealth unchanged. However, from the government’s budget constraint,
and given the interest rate on loans above, the lifetime wealth of good borrowers
would then be
G' pH
G+ = Ny * + N ,
1+ r 1+ r
− s (1 + r ) ≤ pH − t ' ,
pH − t '
c ≤ y −t +
1+ r
c) If the collateral constraint is not binding for any consumer, then clearly Ricardian
equivalence holds just as before. However, if the collateral constraint binds for
any consumers, then Ricardian equivalence still holds. This is because, on the
right-hand side of the collateral constraint above, changing the present value of
taxes does not change the right-hand side of the constraint, so consumption can
remain unchanged, in the present and the future, even for constrained consumers.
If these consumers get a tax cut, the future taxes reduce what anyone is willing to
lend them, as they now have a higher future tax liability, and the government can
confiscate the collateral if they default.
3. This problem combines asymmetric information with limited commitment in the loan
market. Fraction a of lenders are good borrowers who have collateral which will have
a value pH in the future period, and fraction 1-a are bad borrowers who have
collateral that will be valueless. Since there is limited commitment, the bad borrowers
will all default. Therefore, just as in the asymmetric information model, all of the bad
borrowers behave in the same way as the good borrowers.
a) There is a bank the pays an interest rate r1 on deposits and lends at the interest rate
r2. Just as in the asymmetric information model, in equilibrium
1 + r1
r2 = −1 .
a
The collateral constraint for the consumer is then
−(1 + r2 ) s ≤ pH ,
Which can be rewritten as
pH
c ≤ y −t + .
1 + r2
As well, if s > 0, then a consumer faces the interest rate r1, and if s < 0, then he or she
faces the interest rate r2. Thus, the budget constraint has two kinks, as depicted by ABDE
in Figure 10.1.
b) If a decreases, then r2 increases, and the collateral constraint tightens, so that the
budget constraint shifts to ABFG in Figure 10.1. In the figure, we show a
consumer for whom the collateral constraint binds. For this consumer,
consumption in the current period falls, consumption in the future period stays the
same, and savings increases. If the consumer had been a borrower for whom the
collateral constraint does not bind, then the analysis would be identical to what
was done for the asymmetric information model in Figure 10.3 of the chapter.
Consumption would decline in the current period, future consumption could
increase or decrease (depending on income and substitution effects), and savings
would increase. For a lender, there will be no effect.
Figure 10.1
4. a) When the program is first instituted, the current old receive b in benefits and pay
nothing. The effect on the current old is as in Figure 10.6 in the text. The current
young receive b in benefits when they are old. This effect is also captured by the
shift from BA to FD in the text’s Figure 10.6. The current young also lend bN to
the government in period T and receive (1 + r )bN in principal and interest when
they are old. In per capita terms, these amounts are bN/(1 + n) N = b /(1 + n)
and (1 + r )bN/(1 + n) N = (1 + r )b /(1 + n) respectively. However, this borrowing and
lending is represented in Figure 10.6 as movements along the budget line. Unless
there is a change in the real interest rate, there is no additional shift in the budget
line. Therefore, both these generations unambiguously benefit from the program.
(1 + r ) (1 + r )2
1> + .
(1 + n) (1 + n)2
Then, substituting for b in equation (1), using (2), and simplifying, we can determine
that, in equilibrium, c and c’ must also satisfy
( r − n) s c ' y'
c 1 + + = y+ . (3)
1+ r 1+ r 1+ r
First, consider the case where r > n . Then, in Figure 10.2, without the social security
program, the consumer chooses point D on budget constraint AB. But with the social
security program, the consumption bundle chosen by the consumer must satisfy (3),
i.e. it lies on AF in Figure 10.2. But point D is strictly preferred by the consumer to
any point on AF, so the social security program cannot make consumers better off if
r > n . Then, consider the case where r < n . It is possible that we could have a
situation as in Figure 10.3, where the consumer chooses G in the absence of the
program, and H with the social security program so that, again, the consumer is worse
off with social security. In the figure, the consumer’s budget constraint (1) is given by
EF, and the constraint (3) is given by AD, while AB is the budget constraint without
social security. However, it is also possible to have a situation as in Figure 10.4,
where, again, AF is constraint (1), AD is constraint (3), and the budget constraint
without social security is AB. In this case the consumer chooses G without social
security, and H when the program is in place. The consumer is better off with social
security than without it.
Figure 10.2
Figure 10.3
Figure 10.4
The critical difference in this problem from the basic model is that the tax on the
young is a distorting tax, which results in a “friction” in the program. There is a
welfare loss simply from the way the tax is collected. Just as with lump-sum taxes,
social security cannot improve things for everyone unless n > r, but it is possible that
n > r and social security cannot improve everyone’s welfare, because the tax
increases the price of current consumption relative to future consumption.
6. a) Under this change in government policy, the government debt issued in period T
is
DT = Nb ,
where t is the tax paid by each old consumer in period T+1. Therefore, solving the
above equation for t and simplifying, we get
b( r − n)
t= > 0.
1+ n
Therefore, since every period from T+1 on will look the same, the lifetime wealth
of any consumer born in periods T+1 on will now be
y' n−r
we = y + − .
1+ r 1+ n
But note that this is identical to the lifetime wealth these consumers would have if
the pay-as-you-go social security system had stayed in place. Thus, it makes no
difference, given this financing scheme, whether the government gets rid of the
social security system or not.
“Excellency:
“The Council of the ‘Opera Nazionale di Patronato Regina
Elena,’ having known of the conspicuous offer of 1,300,000
lire made by the American National Red Cross in favor of the
children whom the recent earthquake has thrown into the
condition of orphans, has passed a vote of thanks to the
officers and to Your Excellency, to whose influential interest it
is due if so important a part of the funds collected in America
has been devoted to our institution.
“And I, interpreting the desire of the Council, warmly and
specially beg Your Excellency to kindly transmit to the
meritorious American Red Cross the expression of our
profound and heartfelt gratitude toward all the noble and great
American nation, not inferior to any other in all the
manifestations of human genius and solidarity.
“With the assurances of my highest consideration,
“The President,
(Signed) “COUNTESS SPALETTI RASPONI.”
HON. ROBERT BACON
Copyright, Harris-Ewing, ’08
“Mr. Ambassador:
“I have the honor to offer you the warmest thanks of the
Committee and Council of the ‘Opera Nazionale di Patronato
Regina Elena’ for the generous offer which you have made on
behalf of the Calabrian and Sicilian orphans.
“I beg you to be good enough to be interpreter of our very
grateful sentiments to the American Red Cross, which has
completed, with its splendid gift, its relief work in Calabria and
Sicily.
“The Agricultural Colony, which will be named American
Red Cross Orphanage,’ will perpetuate the remembrance of
this charity, and will contribute to render continually more
close the ancient ties of sympathy and friendship which unite
Italy with your mighty Republic, ties which you called attention
to in your brilliant speech on the occasion of the centenary of
the great President Lincoln.
“Accept, Mr. Ambassador, the assurances of my high
consideration.
(Signed) “B. CHIMIRRI.
“To His Excellency,
“Hon. Lloyd C. Griscom,
“Ambassador of the United States of America, Rome.”
MED. DIRECTOR J. C. WIRE
Copyright, Harris-Ewing, ’08