Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:20:23.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterizing the Amount and Speed of Discounting Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Dean T. Jamison  and
Julian Jamison
Dean T. Jamison
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Julian Jamison
Affiliation:
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper introduces the concepts of amount and speed of a discounting procedure in order to generate well-characterized families of procedures for use in social project evaluation. Exponential discounting sequesters the concepts of amount and speed into a single parameter that needs to be disaggregated in order to characterize nonconstant rate procedures. The inverse of the present value of a unit stream of benefits provides a natural measure of the amount a procedure discounts the future. We propose geometrical and time horizon based measures of how rapidly a discounting procedure acquires its ultimate present value, and we prove these to be the same. This provides an unambiguous measure of the speed of discounting, a measure whose values lie between 0 (slow) and 2 (fast). Exponential discounting has a speed of 1. A commonly proposed approach to aggregating individual discounting procedures into a social one for project evaluation averages the individual discount functions. We point to serious shortcoming with this approach and propose an alternative for which the amount and time horizon of the social procedure are the averages of the amounts and time horizons of the individual procedures. We further show that the social procedure will in general be slower than the average of the speeds of the individual procedures. For potential applications in social project evaluation we characterize three families of two-parameter discounting procedures – hyperbolic, gamma, and Weibull – in terms of their discount functions, their discount rate functions, their amounts, their speeds and their time horizons. (The appendix characterizes additional families, including the quasi-hyperbolic one.) A one parameter version of hyperbolic discounting, d(t) = (1+rt)-2, has amount r and speed 0, and this procedure is our candidate for use in social project evaluation, although additional empirical work will be needed to fully justify a one-parameter simplification of more general procedures.

Keywords

discountingsocial discount rateproject evaluationhyperbolic discounting
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , 25 April 2011 , pp. 1 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2011

References

[1] Andersen, Steffen, Harrison, Glenn W., Lau, Morten I., and Elisabet Rutström, E.. Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3):583–619, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Arrow, Kenneth J.. Criteria for social investment. Water Resources Research, 1(1):1–8, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Arrow, Kenneth J.. Discounting and intergenerational equity. In Portney, Paul R. and Weyant, John Peter, editors, Discounting, Morality, and Gaming., pages 13–21. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1999.Google Scholar
[4] Axtell, Robert and McRae, Gregory J.. A general mathematical theory of discounting. Working Paper for the Santa Fe Institute, 2007.Google Scholar
[5] Bagnoli, Mark and Bergstrom, Ted. Log-concave probability and its applications. Economic Theory, 26(2):445–469, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Barlow, Richard E. and Proschan, Frank. Mathematical Theory of Reliability. New York: John Wiley, 1967. Reprinted in 1996 by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
[7] Bleichrodt, Han and Gafni, Amiram. Time preference, the discounted utility model and health. Journal of Health Economics, 15(1):49–66, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[8] Bleichrodt, Han and Johannesson, Magnus. Time preference for health: A test of stationarity versus decreasing timing aversion. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45(2):265–282, 2001.Google Scholar
[9] Boardman, Anthony E., Greenberg, David H., Vining, Aidan R., and Weimer, David L.. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2006.Google Scholar
[10] Cairns, John A. and van Der Pol, Marjon M.. Saving future lives. a comparison of three discounting models. Health Economics, 6(4):341–350, 1997.Google Scholar
[11] Carrière, Jacques. Parametric models for life tables. Transactions of Society of Actuaries, 44:77–99, 1992.Google Scholar
[12] Chapman, Gretchen B.. Time discounting of health outcomes. In Loewenstein, George, Read, Daniel, and Baumeister, Roy F., editors, Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice, pages 395–418. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003.Google Scholar
[13] Cline, William R.. Discounting for the very long term. In Portney, Paul R. and Weyant, John P., editors, Discounting and Intergenerational Equity, pages 131–140. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1999.Google Scholar
[14] Cochrane, John H.. Asset Pricing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
[15] Cropper, Maureen L., Aydede, S.L., and Portney, Paul R.. Preferences for life saving programs: How the public discounts time and age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(3):243–265, 1994.Google Scholar
[16] Dybvig, Philip H. Jr. Ingersoll, Jonathan E., and Ross, Stephen A.. Long forward and zero-coupon rates can never fall. The Journal of Business, 69(1):1–25, 1996.Google Scholar
[17] Fishburn, Peter C. and Rubinstein, Ariel. Time preference. International Economic Review, 23(3):677–694, 1982.Google Scholar
[18] Frederick, Shane, Loewenstein, George, and O’Donoghue, Ted. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2):351–401, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Gollier, Christian and Weitzman, Martin. How should the distant future be discounted when discount rates are uncertain? Economics Letters, 107(3):350–353, 2010.Google Scholar
[20] Gollier, Christian and Zeckhauser, Richard. Aggregation of heterogeneous time preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 113(4):878–896, 2005.Google Scholar
[21] Gradshteyn, I.S. and Ryzhik, I.M.. Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. San Diego: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
[22] Groom, Ben, Hepburn, Cameron, Koundiri, Phoebe, and Pearce, David. Declining discount rates: The long and the short of it. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32:445–493, 2005.Google Scholar
[23] Hara, Chiaki, Huang, James, and Kuzmics, Christoph. Representative consumer’s risk aversion and efficient risk-sharing rules. Journal of Economic Theory, 137(1):652–672, 2007.Google Scholar
[24] Harris, Christopher and Laibson, David. Instantaneous gratification. Unpublished paper, May 2004.Google Scholar
[25] Harvey, Charles M.. Value functions for infinite-period planning. Management Science, 32(9):1123–1139, 1986.Google Scholar
[26] Harvey, Charles M.. The reasonableness of non-constant discounting. Journal of Public Economics, 53(1):31–51, 1994.Google Scholar
[27] Herrnstein, Richard J.. Self-control as response strength. In Bradshaw, C.M., Szabadi, E., and Lowe, C.F., editors, Quantification of Steady-state Operant Behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, 1981.Google Scholar
[28] Jamison, Dean T. Conjoint measurement of time preference and utility. Rand Report RM6029-PR. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1969.Google Scholar
[29] Keyfitz, Nathan. Demography. In Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray, and Newman, Peter, editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, volume 1, pages 796–802. London: Macmillan Reference, Ltd., 1998.Google Scholar
[30] Koopmans, Tjalling C.. Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica, 28(2):287–309, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Laibson, David. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2):443–477, May 1997.Google Scholar
[32] Lengwiler, Yvan. Heterogeneous patience and the term structure of real interest rates. American Economic Review, 95(3):890–896, 2005.Google Scholar
[33] Lipscomb, Joseph, Weinstein, Milton C., and Torrance, George W.. Time preference. In Gold, Marthe R., Russell, Louise B., Siegal, Joanna A., and Weinstein, Milton C., editors, Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine, pages 214–246. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
[34] Loewenstein, George. The fall and rise of psychological explanations in the economics of intertemporal choice. In Loewenstein, George and Elster, Jon, editors, Choice Over Time, pages 3–34. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.Google Scholar
[35] Loewenstein, George and Prelec, Drazen. Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2):573–597, May 1992.Google Scholar
[36] Long, Mark C., Zerbe, Richard O., and Davis, Tyler. The discount rate for public projects. Presented at the Annual meeting of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis, Washington, DC, October 2010.Google Scholar
[37] Malkiel, Burton G.. Term structure of interest rates. In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P., editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, volume 4, pages 629–631. London: Macmillan Reference, Ltd., 1998.Google Scholar
[38] Nelson, Charles and Siegel, Andrew. Parsimonious modelling of yield curves. Journal of Business, 60:473–489, 1987.Google Scholar
[39] Newell, Richard and Pizer, William. Discounting the benefits of climate change mitigation: How much do uncertain rates increase valuations? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 6(1):52–71, 2003.Google Scholar
[40] Oxera. A Social Time Preference Rate for Use in Long-Term Discounting. A Report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Department for Transport, 2002.Google Scholar
[41] Poulos, Christine and Whittington, Dale. Time preference for life-saving programs: Evidence from six less developed countries. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(8):1445–1455, 2000.Google Scholar
[42] Ramsey, Frank P.. A mathematical theory of saving. The Economic Journal, 38(152):543–559, December 1928.Google Scholar
[43] Read, Daniel. Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(1):5–32, 2001.Google Scholar
[44] Roelofsma, Peter H.M.P.. Modelling intertemporal choices. Acta Psychologica, 93(1-3):5–22, 1996.Google Scholar
[45] Rudin, Walter. Principles of Mathematical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, third edition, 1976.Google Scholar
[46] Sokolnikoff, I.S. and Redheffer, Raymond A.. Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.Google Scholar
[47] Stern, Nicholas. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
[48] Strotz, Robert H.. Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23(3):165–180, 1956.Google Scholar
[49] Summers, Laurence H. and Zeckhauser, Richard J.. Policymaking for posterity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(2-3):115–140, 2008.Google Scholar
[50] HM Treasury. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: HM Treasury, 2003.Google Scholar
[51] Vaupel, James W., Manton, Kenneth G., and Stallard, Eric. The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography, 16(3):439–454, 1979.Google Scholar
[52] Weitzman, Martin L.. Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36(3):201–208, 1998.Google Scholar
[53] Weitzman, Martin L.. Gamma discounting. American Economic Review, 91(1):260–271, 2001.Google Scholar