Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WILLIAM A. BROCK*
AND
LEONARDJ. MIRMAN*
to predict the exact effects of policies which are formulated in the present,
it would be comforting to know that it is possible to formulate the model
so that the stability properties of optimal capital accumulation paths are
preserved even if under the influence of small perturbation (or large
perturbations, although perhaps infrequently). In fact, if a model of the
the economy took these uncertainties or random fluctuations into
consideration at the outset, when the optimal plans are calculated, it
would be expected that the system behaved in a manner analogous to the
deterministic system of the Cass-Koopmans type.
It seems reasonable that the possibility of error in observation, in output
or in aggregation should be accounted for when calculating optimal
policies in the present. If errors or random events are indeed incorporated,
optimal policies will be affected by the expectation of these events. Under
these conditions, it is worthwhile to introduce uncertainty directly into the
process. The deterministic theory would then be justified on the grounds
that it is indeed an approximation of a more general model. Thus, when the
assumptions of the model are loosened to include uncertainty, the quali-
tative results are not radically different. This last statement is a conclusion
which may be deduced from the results of this paper.
In dealing in this uncertain context, it is no longer feasible to maximize
discounted integrals of returns since these returns are random vairables.
The choice of a criterion function is then crucial for the results. The
criterion used in this paper is consistent with much of the literature of
optimal decisions under uncertainty. We maximize the expected sum of
discounted utilities. In this way the possibility of random fluctuations
which is inherent in the model is taken into account when calculating
optimal policies. This approach leads to results similar to the results
obtained in the deterministic model except that the concepts of steady-
state and long-run stability must be extended to cover the generalized
model.
To be somewhat more precise, we treat a one-sector model of economic
growth and introduce uncertainty into the model through a random
element in the production function. This random variable might also be
thought of as an observation error on the capital stock. The criterion is
to maximize the expected sum of discounted utilities. The main emphasis
of the paper is on long-run equilibrium of the economy under the influence
of optimal policies. This long-run equilibrium is analogous to the modified
golden rule in the deterministic theory.
Allof theprevious authors who have generalized thedeterministic growth
model in the direction of uncertainty have dealt with the problem of
finding optimal consumption or investment policies, not with long-run
or asymptotic properties. Since one maximizes the expected value of the
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 481
These partial differential equations are then used in the special case of
the utility function U(C) = -Cc-“, n > 0. The homogeneity built into the
structure of the problem allows Mirrlees to reduce the partial differential
equation to an ordinary differential equation. Using this differential
equation the qualitative behavior of the system is analysed. Mirrlees also
investigates the existence of optimal policies. However, there are numerous
difficulties in this problem. For example, for almost all sample paths the
Wiener process are not differentiable.
In a recent paper in portfolio analysis, Merton [8] uses techniques
similar to those employed by Mirrlees. His results are obtained by reducing
the partial differential equation to an ordinary one by using a trans-
formation function which does not seem to work in more general cases.
The work of Phelps represents the first important model along the lines
of the theory of growth under uncertainty. He uses the theory of dynamic
programming to investigate optimal consumption decisions in a discrete
time growth model. Phelps’ main concern is the individual. Thus, his
model employs a linear production function with only one possible
investment opportunity. He investigates the relationship between invest-
ment decisions and the length of the planning horizon. Furthermore,
several important examples are worked out. The method is to approximate
the solution of the infinite horizon problem with the solutions of finite
horizon problems as the horizon goes to infinity. These methods and the
method of functional equations used by Levhari and Srinivasan will be
used below to analyse the model of this paper. Levhari and Srinivasan
work explicitly with the dynamic programming formulation. They show,
in a nonrigorous way, the important properties of optimal policies, e.g.,
continuity.
The basic framework for this paper was developed by Mirman in
[9, lo], for discrete-time, one-sector stochastic growth models in the
positive theory of economic growth. The behavior of the economy under
the influence of a rather large class of admissible consumption policies is
investigated. These works represent a nontrivial extension of the Solow [ 141
positive growth model to the stochastic case. In [9] and [lo] the random
element enters in a more general way than in the Mirrlees’ or Phelps’
work, i.e., the formulation of the model is completely general in the sense
that the production function is of the form f(k, A). Here k is the capital
labor ratio and A is the random variable.
Formulating the model in this way allows the production function to
have the Harrod neutral form of Mirrlees, the linear form of Phelps,
Levhari and Srinivasan, the Hicks neutral form of Mirrlees and Mirman
or the random shock form of Leland [5] and Mirman [ll] (i.e.,f(k) + A).
The long-term or steady-state behavior of the stochastic process for
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 483
positive models of economic growth is the main focus in [9] and [lo].
The model is essentially a discrete time Markov process defined on the
continuum of nonnegative real numbers corresponding to capital labor
ratios. At any time t the capital labor ratio or capital stock is a random
variable. Moreover, the sequence of capital stocks form a Markov process.
The distribution function Ft of kt is generated by the transition function of
theMarkovprocess. Theconceptof astationarydistributionbeinganalogous
to the steady-state concept of deterministic theory plays a major role in
the theory. A stationary distribution F, is one which the Markov transition
function does not change; i.e., F, holds period after period. The techniques
of probability theory are employed to determine the relationship between
steady state (in a generalized or statistical sense) and various consumption
policies. It was shown that to each admissible consumption policy there
corresponds a unique steady-state probability distribution over the set of
possible capital-labor ratios. This generalized the usual deterministic
results of the existence and uniqueness of steady states corresponding to
certain consumption functions.
The existence and uniqueness of a generalized steady state would be
uninteresting if the steady state had no stability properties. In [9, lo], it
was shown that starting from an arbitrary capital labor ratio there is
convergence of the subsequent distribution functions to the unique steady-
state distribution function.
Finally, in a review of the literature of this type, it should be pointed
out that the inventory theory literature contains examples of problems
which in structure are similar to the growth models. An analysis of
stochastic stability has been carried out by Karlin [3]. However, the
inventory models do not seem directly applicable especially in light of the
fact that the functional analytic technique used by Karlin can be greatly
simplified in the simple one-sector optimal growth paradigm.
The model used in this paper is analogous to the Mirrlees and Mirman
model of a one-sector economy under uncertainty, which is essentially
the generalization of the Cass-Koopman model with a random variable
in the production function. In fact, our methods unify the structure of
growth theory. The dynamic programming formulation makes the Cass-
Koopman results somewhat easier to obtain. It is thus seen that this
paper represents a nontrivial extension and unification of the work of
Cass, Koopman, Mirman and Solow. The dynamic programming
techniques are used to construct the necessary conditions which are
satisfied by optimal policies. These necessary conditions are the stochastic
analog to the well-worn Euler equations. These Euler type conditions are
then explored to get at the properties of optimal investment and
consumption policies. The consumption policy in turn determines the
6421413-9
484 BROCK AND MIRMAN
1. THE MODEL
yt+--pt - 5
(Lt’l;rt) =f(xt,rt),
where xt = K,IL, . Another way of thinking about this model is to have
xt denote the capital stock. In this the labor component of the model
is suppressed.
For each possible value p of the random variable rt the function f(*, p)
is endowed with the well-known properties of production functions.
Let f’(*, .) = af(*, *)/UC. Then we assume
for all values of p. Finally the functions f and f’ are continuous in both
arguments jointly.
The statistics of the random variables rt are introduced as follows. Let sZt
be the set of possible “states of the world” which influence the production
process at time t. A typical element of St would be at which represents
the occurrence of, say, an epidemic of a given proportion at time t.
Let gt be a collection of subsets of Qt on which probabilities are denned.
A typical member of Ft would be the set of Wt E 52, which imply that labor
participation in the period is less than 90 y0 effective due to an epidemic.
The set St is assumed to be a u-algebra of subsets of Qt . Probabilistic
or measure-theoretic concepts will be used throughout this paper.
However, only the most basic of the measure-theoretic concepts will be
used. For a discussion of these concepts, see Lobve [7]. Let Pt be a function,
a probability measure, defined on & which assigns a probability to each
element of St, i.e., for any set Ft E St, the probability that the state of
the world q at time t is an element of Ft is given by
It is assumed that the probability space (Q, , St, Pt) is the same in each
period. Hence, for convenience, time subscripts will be dropped and the
486 BROCK AND MIRMAN
Moreover, we assume that the random event can only affect production
in a “compact” sense. Namely, there exists numbers 0 < 01 < fi < cc
such that
r E [a, PI
and for all x > 0,
a > fk B) > f(x, 4 > 0. (1.3)
In this discussion it is assumed, without loss of generality, that for
every p > cy, Y([OI,p]) > 0. Since, if not, one could just as well choose
01 = sup{q: v((O,7]) = O}. Similarly, ~([p, /I]) > 0 for each p < 8.
The object of this study is to characterize the long-run behavior of the
growth process which is represented by the stochastic difference equation
max E f 8u(ct),
t=o
subject to the constraints
Ct + Xt = f(xt-I 3 Q-l), t = 1, 2, 3,...
and
co + x0 = 8, Xt , Ct > 0.
Here s > 0 is the given initial data of the problem representing the
historically given capital stock. Also the subjective discount rate is given
by 0 < 6 -C 1. Note it is assumed that investment is reversible. This
assumption allows the possibility that xt+l < xt .
From the definition of /3 and the conditions imposed on the production
function, there exists a x6 such that for all x > x0
488 BROCK AND MIRMAN
Hence capital cannot be sustained no matter what the state of the world
if x > x,.
It is immediately apparent from the above remark that for any initial
capital stock s there exists a solution to the maximization problem which
by strict concavity is unique. From the usual dynamic programming
arguments the optimal consumption policy in the tth period may be written
in the form Zt = g(f(E,-, , rt-J). The associated consumption policy is
given by the equation
max E i S%(q)
t=o
subject to
- = = ht’(f(z4 , rt-1))
Xt and ZtT = gtT(f& I b-1))
be optimal investment and consumption policies for the T-period horizon
problem. It is an easily verified fact that htT(*) and gtT(-) are increasing
continuous functions. These properties will be used below to show that
Xt and Et are strictly increasing continuous functions.
Proof. From Lemma 1.1, c,,(s) and x,,(s) are increasing in s. Thus for
all s, > 0,
and
liTi0 x0(s) = x&o-) sg x&j+> = li&i x0(s).
0
However,
co(s) + x&s) = s.
Hence
cotso-> + xo(so-> = so
and
c&o+) + x&o+) = $I .
From which we get
[co(so->
- co(~o+)l
+ bo(so->- %d~o+)l= 0.
Since both co(s) and x0(s) are increasing in s, both terms of the sum must
be nonpositive. Hence
co(so-> = co(so+)
and
xo(so-> = xo(so+>,
which is continuity.
Let pt be the measure associated with the possible values of the random
variables Zt . The measures pt are debed as
49 = Wt E Bl, t = 0, 1, 2,...
The value pt(B) represents the probability that the optimal capital
stock at time t, ft belongs to the set B. Let Ft(x) be the distribution function
associated with the measure pt . The distribution function Ft(x) and the
measure pt are related as follows:
probability that Xt+l belongs to the set B is P(% , B). Note P(x, a) is a
measurable function as a result of Fubini’s theorem. Symbolically,
Intuitively, this means that the probability of having a capital stock in the
set B at time t is the probability of having a capital stock 6 in period t - 1
times the probability of going from capital stock 6 to the set of capital
stocks B. This is then summed over all possible capital stocks at time t.
It is useful at this point to introduce the inverse function of H(x, r) with
respect to its first argument. This inverse function plays an important role
in the proof of the convergence of the sequence of distribution functions
which will be discussed subsequently.
The function q(y, r) is defined in terms of the function H by the equation
where
4mr>= b = 4(Y,r);YEa
Here q(B, I) is the set of possible capital stocks from which one can get
to some element in the set B if r represents the prevailing “state of the
world”.
The measures p*(B) = Pr{X, E B}, t = 0, 1,2,... are given by
then for our stochastic process a steady-state distribution po3 must satisfy
and
C t+1 =fW - &Cl.
Since g(e) is an increasing function, both a(x) and b(x) are decreasing
functions.
Furthermore,
(2.6)
FIGURE 1
a.b
b(x)
FIGURE 2
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 495
b(x) > a(x) and for x > Z, b(x) < a(x). From this fact, it follows that the
process it, with a&) = b(X,+J is globally stable. For suppose that
Et > X, then
4%) = &+I) < 4%+1).
Hence since a(x) decreases
(3.2)
FIGURE 3
496 BROCK AND MIRMAN
Note that since f and g are increasing functions in both of their arguments
and u’ is a decreasing function, d is a decreasing function of both
arguments.
Define a fixed point xP , of H(x, p) corresponding to the realization p
of the random variable r; i.e., H(x, , p) = X, . The following lemma shows
that for any p E (CL,p] there exists an E+,> 0 such that no positive &ted
point of the investment function H(-, p) exists in the interval (0,~~).
Moreover, since H(-, p) is continuous for each p E (01,/3], there exists a
minimum positive fixed point of the function H(-, p). The lemma also
shows that the minimum positive fixed point of H(*, p) for each p E (01,/3]
FIGURE 4
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 497
is stable. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate two situations which are ruled out by
Lemma 1.1. Figure 5 depicts the kind of situation that is still possible.
Note that the value (II causes some difficulty since it cannot be said that
a minimum positive fixed point of the function H(*, a) exists. Fortunately,
this does not raise any serious difficulties for the proof of the main theorem.
LEMMA 3.1. Let Zt+, = H(X, , r-3, where H(x, r) is the optimal capital
policy. Then for each p E (01,/3] there exists an E, > 0 such that for all
x E (0, 3, H(x, p) > x.
Proof? Let p E ((y., 81, and let X, be a fixed point of H(-, p). From
Eq. (32,
Note that a, /I have been chosen so that V&X, p]) > 0, for p > 01 and
v(b, /I]) > 0 for all p < 8. Hence
This contradicts inequality (3.3) which is valid for all tied points of
H(., p). This discussion is valid for all p E (01,,9]. Hence, for each p E (OL,j3]
there exists an E, > 0 such that for all x E (0, EJ either H(x, p) > x or
m, PI < x*
Suppose that H(x, p) -=cx for all x E (0, E,]. Furthermore, let Z,, E (0, l ,).
Then from the hypothesis H(x, p) < x, for rt E [a, p],
Note that the last expression is valid for the realization rt = (Y since
H(x, a) -=cH(x, p) < x. Hence, for rt E [a, p], Rt -+ 0, as t -+ a, as a
consequence, f’& , 5) + co, as t -+ 03, for all 5 E [01,p], indeed for all
5 Eb, PI.
To show a contradiction, consider the realization rt = p. We then have
. -
since xt+l < Xt and d(-, *) is decreasing in both arguments. Moreover,
fixed points near the origin of the function H(-, p) for all p E (IX, /I].
However, as stated above, an infinite number of positive fixed points cannot
be ruled out for the function H(*, o). On the other hand, it is easily seen
that if {x,} is a sequence of positive fixed points of H(*, a) such that
x, + 0, we have
i.e., the probability that the process remains unstable tends to zero as x
gets closer to the origin. If this were not the case and V(E) = 0 there would
exist an 7 > (Ysuch that H(-, 77)possesses an infinite number of positive
tied points which is impossible by Lemma 3.1. However, if v(a) > 0 then,
as will be shown in Lemma 3.2, H(-, CX)must possess a minimum positive
tied point. Hence in the case ~(a) > 0 there exists an x,, such that for
all x < x,, , H(x, p) > x for all p E [IX, /I].
LEMMA 3.2. If v(a) > 0 then there exists an E > 0 such that for
x E (0, e), H(x, a) > x.
642/4/P10
500 BROCK AND MIRMAN
x E (xMR , a); i.e., H(x, p) > x. Let the initial stocks be s > xMB ,
then X,(/?) -+ co. Here X&3”) = X,(p, /3,..., /3); i.e., x&Y) is investment at
period t if the realization of r equals p, f times. However, from the
feasibility conditions
where ft(s, /3) is defined inductively by ft(s, fl) = ft-l(f(s, p), p). More-
over, ft(s, /3) -+ 32’,, , where RM6 is the unique positive fixed point of
f(*, p). This yields a contradiction. Hence the maximum fixed point of
H(*, /3) is stable. This proof is valid for all p E [01,/3] since H(*, p) < H(*, /3).
The next lemma establishes a crucial property of paths of optimal capital
accumulation. In effect, it establishes the existence of a “stable” set which
acts like a set of recurrent states in the theory of Markov Processes. This
“stable” set, as will be seen, has the property that each subset of its
complement (complement with respect to the positive real line) has zero
probability under the stationary measure. Moreover, from any initial
value, all probability will eventually flow to this “stable” set. In order
to make this idea more precise, the following definition is needed.
Hence,
In this section we use the properties of the optimal policy to derive the
long-run asymptotic behavior of the optimal capital stock. Consider again
the measure pt associated with the optimal capital stock Xt starting from
given initial stocks s. The measures pt are generated by Eq. (1.11) which
gives the statistical motion of the stochastic process X1 ,..., Zt ,.... For
convenience, we restate Eq. (1.11);
(4.2)
since q(0, p) = 0.
The proof of the convergence of the distribution functions E;,(x) to a
limiting distribution I;(X) will be based on the following intuitive ideas.
It will be shown that the difference between Ft(x) and F,+,(X) for arbitrary
h > 0 can be made arbitrarily small, independent of x, if t is chosen large
enough. This fact implies the uniform convergence of the sequence I;t(x) and
hence the existence of a limit distribution function I;(x). In order to show
uniform convergence the process is iterated backwards. Suppose that
the initial value of the sequence is F,(x) which is a degenerate distribution
concentrated at some point x0 . We then consider the set of points from
which one can get to x in t steps. This set of points has the property that,
except for arbitrarily small probability, the t-th and (t + h)-th inverse
iterates are identical with respect to the distribution function F,(X). Such
I and h can be found independent of x. Hence, since the proof depends
strongly on this temporally inverse reasoning, we first investigate the
inverse process
%+I = q(% ,a
Clearly, the properties of q are related to the properties of H which were
derived in the previous section. For example, the continuity of the function
q follows directly from the continuity of H. Moreover, let x, be a fixed
point of H(x, p); i.e., H(x, , p) = x, . Then q(x, , p) = x, , since, by
definition,
ffM& 3 PI> PI = x, *
Hence H and q have the same set of tied points.
From (3.6), xMP is the maximum fixed point of H(., p) and, from (3.5),
x,, is the minimum fixed point of iY(*, p). From Lemmas 3.1 and 3.3, it
follows that, for p E (01,/3], H(x, p) < x, x E (xMD , co) and H(x, p) > x,
x E (0, x,,,). The next lemma establishes a similar property for the inverse
function q.
LEMMA 4.1. For all x E (xMo , co), q(x, p) > x. For all x E (0, xm,,),
4(x, P>< x,for P E(ohBI.
Proof. Suppose that x E (xlllp , co), then there exists a y E (x,,.,~, co)
such that H(y, p) = x. This follows from the facts that H(*, p) is an
increasing continuous function for each p, H(xMO, p) = xMO, and
TJ3E DISCOUNTED CASE 503
H(co, p) = co. Moreover, for all y E (x~,, , co) we have H(y, p) < y.
Hence x < y. From the definition of the inverse function, we have
dx, P) = Y and
x < 4(x, P>, (4.3)
i.e., for all x E (xMP , co), (4.3) is satisfied. A similar argument shows that
for x E (0, x,,J, x > q(x, p). Hence stability properties of the function
q(., p), p E (01,,f3]is established. Note that the function q(., a) is a special
case in the same way that H(-, IX) is a special case. Namely, it is possible
that there exists a sequence {x,} of positive fixed points of q(., a) such that
x, -+ 0. In this case, as was pointed out above, if ~(a) = 0, then
This implies the equivalent property for the function q(*, a); i.e.,
More precisely, for any E > 0, there exists an x(e) such that the probability
that q(x, p) > x, for x < X(E), is less than E. This turns out to be more
than enough to establish the convergence result which we are after.
In the case ~(a) > 0, an even stronger result is possible. As was shown
in Lemma 3.2, there exists a minimum positive fixed point xnzorof H(-, a).
Moreover, H(-, a) has the property that for all x < x,, , H(x, a) > x.
A similar property is valid for q(., a); namely, for x < x,, , q(x, a) < x.
We are now in a position to proceed to the proof of the main result.
The essence of which is that starting from any x > 0 the q process
eventually leaves any positive compact set not containing the origin with
probability greater than E > 0. In fact, the process leaves in finite time.
In order to make this statement precise it is necessary to introduce the
concept of a transient set for a stochastic process.
sequence {x,} of positive fixed points of q(., a). Define the sets
A,, = [x, , xMB]. The next lemma establishes the fact the sets A, are
transient. Note the proof is valid whether or not x, + 0. In fact, it is valid
whether or not q(-, CY)possesses a finite or an infinite number of positive
fixed points x, .
LEMMA 4.2. The sets A, are transient for the process 4, = q(2,-, , t-3,
$0 = x.
The proof of this lemma is based on a simple idea. Namely, the interval
A, is decomposed into two not necessarily disjoint intervals. For every
point in each of these intervals a set of possible realizations of the random
variable r having positive probability with respect to the v measure is
identified. For realizations in this set the inverse process eventually leaves
the interval A, with a positive probability after a fixed number of steps.
In fact, we show that the expected number of visits to the set A, is finite.
Hence A, is transient. Since this statement is with respect to the inverse
process, an equivalent way of stating this conclusion is that, if the process
is started outside of the interval A, then under the forward process H(x, r),
with positive probability the system enters the interval A, . Figure 6 may
be used as a guide to the proof.
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 505
i=l
which is finite. Hence we have shown that the set [x, , x,,] is transient.
Using a similar construction there exists an +j such that +j > 01 and
x4 > xMMo!with
x4 = max{x 1q(x, ij) = x} (4.6)
such that for all p E [a, +j],
4(x, PI > x, for all x E [x4, co). (4.7)
506 BROCK AND MIRMAN
It follows, using an argument similar to the one above, that there exists
a 7 and ?i? such that for each x E [xfi , xMB] the probability of leaving this
set after li;i steps is greater than F. Hence, the expected number of visits
to the set [x? , ~~~1, after starting in this set, is finite. In which case the
set [xq , x&j is transient.
In order to complete the proof it is necessary to show that there exists
an j = ~7which together with xrrlsatisfies conditions (4.6) and (4.7). When
such an 7 is found, it is easily seen from the above discussion that the set
A, is transient, since, as has been shown, the expected number of visits to
the set A, after starting from any point in A, is finite. Moreover, as is clear
from the properties of the function q, it is impossible to enter the set A,
from any point not in A, .
From the continuity of q, it follows that for all Gj < j conditions (4.6)
and (4.7) are satisfied. Hence if + > r an + exists with the property that
Tj = 7 and x; = x,, . However, suppose that +j < q. Then x,, has the
properties of x4 ; namely,
Moreover +j -=c~7implies that xq < x, (and thus [xq , co) 3 [x, , co)), since
Hence, instead of showing that the set [xv , xMe] is transient, the above
discussion can be used to show that the set [x,, , x,&J is transient. In other
words, the value 7 and the point x,, satisfy conditions analogous to (4.6)
and (4.7) which imply that the set [x, , xMs] is transient. This completes
the proof.
Define the n-step inverse process q”(x, P) from the inverse process
starting from x as
Here rn E [cu,pin, [(II, /3]” = [IX, p] x [IX, fl] x ... x [01,/3] (since exponents
are not used in this paper, no confusion will arise).
Note that for all x E (xMB , co), qn(x, P) -+ cc as IZ -+ co with probability
one since for all r E [01,/3], q(x, r) > x, whenever x E (xMB , co). Also, if
H(*, CX)has a finite number of positive tied points there exists a minimum
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 507
positive ftxed point xmrr . In this case, qn(x, rn) + 0, as n -+ co, for all
x E (0, &?ak).
The next Lemma establishes a uniform bound on the time of exit of
all but at most E probability from the set A,, .
LEMMA 4.3. Let E > 0 be given. Consider the set A,, = [x,, , x,&J.
There exists an M(A,J = M, such that for all m > M, and all x E A,, ,
Proof? Since the set A, is transient there exists for each x, and for
each E > 0, and M(x) such that for all m 3 M(x),
To show that there exists an M such that M > M(x), for all x, suppose
the contrary; i.e., suppose that there exists a sequence xt E A, such that
44(x,) -+ co. Since A, is a compact set, there exists a subsequence xj
(denoting xt, by xt) which converges to X E A, and M(E) < co.
Once qL(Z, p”) has left the set A,, , either qm(X, pm) E [xms , co), in which
case qt(?, pt) -+ cc, as t + co, or qn(X, pm) E [0, x,]. In the latter case,
the process will eventually leave the set A,, = [x,+~, xJ, here
x,+~ < x, . In either case, for any E > 0, there exists an 7 > 0 such that,
for all t > M(Z),
where d(-, a) is the usual distance between a point and a set. Since for
each t, qt(-, *) is uniformly continuous on the compact set An,&, flit, there
existsa~>OandaJ>lsuchthat,foralIj>,J,\~-xxi) <<and
I 4Y% P3 - qYx5 2P31 G 77.
Hence, for all j > J and all t 2 M,
WqYxj , ~3 t+ -4J < e.
This contradicts the definition of x, ; namely, it contradicts the assumption
that M(xJ -+ cc, and completes the proof.
These two lemmas lead to the main theorem.
~4~)
= j F~:,_,(~(~,
d)v(4d. (4.2)
Written symbolically as
(4.f3)
In the last integral the extra h iterates in the integration are added for
convenience. Since ~(a) is a probability measure the value of the integral
is not altered. Hence, rewriting (4.8), we have
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 509
Thus, we split the integral into three pieces corresponding to the events
that the t-th interate of q, starting from x, belongs to the set (0, x,J,
(x MB 9 co), or A, . Note that qt(x, r3 E (0, x,J implies that qt+A(x, rt) E (0, x~).
A similar statement applies to the set (xMB , co).
Moreover, if qt(x, f) E (0, xn) or qt(x, f) E (xMB , co) we have
Fob(q”+Atx,d) = &Wtx, f>)
since Fe(x) is degenerate with all mass concentrated at x*. Hence, from
Lemma 4.3 there exists an M, such that II = 0, I, = 0, for t > M,, .
Thus, (4.9) may be written as
However, the probability of being in the set A, after the t-th period is less
than E. Moreover, since F. is a distribution function, I F,,(x) - F&y)1 < 2.
Hence
I Ft+,W - r;,Wl < 2~.
A similar argument is valid if x* 3 xMB .
510 BROCK AND MIRMAN
Iterating, we get
ff(x)= j, mm P”))4ff)-
Now by an argument similar to that used to show Ft -+ F, we have
H(x) E 0 for x E [0, x~J U [xMO , co). Moreover, qt(x, pt) eventually enters
the set [0, xMMa]u [x~~ , co) with probability one; hence H(x) = 0. Thus
the limit F is unique and therefore independent of initial stocks.
max E i u(c:“)
b-0
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 511
subject to
It will now be shown that there exists a set A, of positive v measure such
that ZJw) > E:+‘(W), w E A, .
Suppose that
However, this contradicts (Al) and (A2). Thus, there does exist a set A,
of positive measure on which El=(a) < $+l(w). Moreover, on A, ,
Using the facts that u’(0) = + co and f(0, r) = 0, ZF+r (wl ,..., wT) > 0.
Hence (A3) contradicts (A4) which proves the theorem.
Consider the case in which the final stocks are constrained to be
XTT = b. Here b = b (q ,..., wr), wi E fini . Moreover, b is chosen to be
feasible for each sequence of w’s. By feasibility, it is meant that b
is attainable after T + 1 steps. Let I,,=(b) be the optimal capital policy
as a function of the final constraint b. The T + l’s will be omitted for
convenience.
THEOREM A2. Let b,(w, ,..., wT) < b,(w, ,..., or) for almost all
@J1 )..., UT), W( E Qi . Then Z,,=(bl) -=c R,,=(b&
Proof. Suppose that XoT(bl) > ZOT(bJ (the T’s will be dropped for
convenience). Then c,(bl) < E,(b,). Here Qb,) + x,(bd = s. Hence,
THEOREMA3. We have XtT(q ,..., q) f Xt(w, ,..., cut)for all (q ,..., cut),
WiES&,as T+co.
Proof. Clearly, X:+l(wl ,..., 0~~) > 0 for almost all (0~~ ,..., wT), wa E Oi .
If not, then f(0, r) = 0 implies that i;Fz: = 0 which contradicts the
optimality of {$+l}. In the necessary condition the expectation was with
respect to the measure v governing the values of oT. Hence, XF+:” > 0
almost everywhere. The condition b, = X;+’ on the final stocks of the T
period program induces a related T period problem. Namely,
max E i u(&)
t=o
THE DISCOUNTED CASE 513
subject to
co + &I = s,
Ct + xt = m-1 , rt-11,
and
XTbl T.--YUT) = M% ,**-, UT).
Here
Applying Theorems Al and A2 implies that XtT < X:+-l for almost all
w1 Y---Y w T 3 wi E Q1 . Thus XtT T Zt for almost all w1 ,..., o.+ , such that
wi E Oi . Thus proves the theorem.
REFERENCES