翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Greenwood, Virginia ・ Greenwood, West Virginia ・ Greenwood, Western Australia ・ Greenwood, Wisconsin ・ Greenwood, Wisconsin (disambiguation) ・ Greenwood, Wise County, Texas ・ Greenwood-Afton Rural Historic District ・ Greenwood/Greenbriar, Calgary ・ Greenwood/Hamilton, Trenton, New Jersey ・ Greenwoodella ・ Greenwoodochromis ・ Greenwoodochromis bellcrossi ・ Greenwoodochromis christyi ・ Greenwoods ・ Greenwoods Corner, New Zealand ・ Greenwood–Hercowitz–Huffman preferences ・ Greenwood–Leflore Airport ・ Greenwreath ・ Greenwyck, Wisconsin ・ GreenXC ・ GreenXchange ・ GreenZap ・ Greenzo ・ Green–Davies–Mingos rules ・ Green–Kubo relations ・ Green–Schwarz mechanism ・ Green–Tao theorem ・ Green–white–checker finish ・ Green’s Balloon at Newcastle ・ Greeper laces Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Greenwood–Hercowitz–Huffman preferences ： ウィキペディア英語版 Greenwood–Hercowitz–Huffman preferences Greenwood–Hercowitz–Huffman preferences are a particular functional form of utility developed by Jeremy Greenwood, Zvi Hercowitz, and Gregory Huffman, in their 1988 paper ''Investment, Capacity Utilization, and the Real Business Cycle''.〔 An archive for the original research is here: http://hdl.handle.net/1802/2688〕 It describes the macroeconomic impact of technological changes that affect the productivity of new capital goods. The paper also introduced the notions of investment-specific technological progress and capacity utilization into modern macroeconomics. GHH preferences have Gorman form. Often macroeconomic models assume that agents' utility is additively separable in consumption and labor. I.e., frequently the period utility function is something like :$u(c,l)\; =\; \backslash frac-\; \backslash psi\; \backslash frac$ where $c$ is consumption and $l$ is labor (e.g., hours worked). Note that this is separable in that the utility (loss) from working does not directly affect the utility (gain or loss) from consumption, i.e. the cross-derivative of utility with respect to consumption and labor is 0. GHH preferences might instead have a form like: :$u(c,l)\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left(c\; -\; \backslash psi\; \backslash frac\; \backslash right)^$ where now consumption and labor are not additively separable in the same way. For an agent with this utility function, the amount she/he works will actually affect the amount of utility she/he receives from consumption, i.e. the cross-derivative of utility with respect to consumption and labor is unequal to 0. More generally, the preferences are of the form : The first order condition of $u(c,l)$ with respect $l$ is given by :$U\text{'}\backslash left(c\; -\; G(l)\backslash right)\backslash left(\backslash frac\; -\; G\text{'}(l)\; \backslash right)\; =\; 0$ which implies :$\backslash frac\; =\; G\text{'}(l).$ As $dc/dl$ is typically just a wage $w$, this means the labor choice $l$ is a function of only the wage and has a closed form with $l\; =\; G\text{'}^(w)$. As a result, the preferences are exceptionally convenient to work with. Moreover, as the marginal rate of substitution is independent of consumption and only depends on the real wage, there is no wealth effect on the labour supply. Using preference without a wealth effect on the labour supply might help to explain the aggregate economic behaviour following news shocks,〔 〕 and government spending shocks.〔 〕 Their use is also very common in open macro studies.〔 〕 ==Generalization: Jaimovich–Rebelo preferences== GHH preferences are not consistent with a balanced growth path. Jaimovich and Rebelo proposed a preference specification that allows scaling the short-run wealth effect on the labor supply.〔 〕 The two polar cases are the standard King–Plosser–Rebelo preferences〔 〕 and the GHH-preferences. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Greenwood–Hercowitz–Huffman preferences」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.