Time-Inconsistent Preferences and Social Security
By Ayse Imrohoroglu, Selahattin Imrohoroglu, Douglas H. Joines. 2003
236 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In this paper we examine the role of social security in an economy populated by overlapping generations of individuals with time-inconsistent preferences who face mortality risk, individual income risk, and borrowing constraints. Agents in this economy are heterogeneous with respect to age, employment status, retirement status, hours worked, and asset holdings. We consider two cases of time-inconsistent preferences. First, we model agents as quasi-hyperbolic discounters. They can be sophisticated and play a symmetric Nash game against their future selves; or they can be naive and believe that their future selves will exponentially discount. Second, we consider retrospective time inconsistency. We find that (1) there are substantial welfare costs to quasi-hyperbolic discounters of their time-inconsistent behavior, (2) social security is a poor substitute for a perfect commitment technology in maintaining old-age consumption, (3) there is little scope for social security in a world of quasi-hyperbolic discounters (with a short-term discount rate up to 15%), and, (4) the ex ante annual discount rate must be at least 10% greater than seems warranted ex post in order for a majority of individuals with retrospective time inconsistency to prefer a social security tax rate of 10% to no social security. Our findings question the effectiveness of unfunded social security in correcting for the undersaving resulting from time-inconsistent preferences.
Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bef70d7305edcaa95448dc0164647e73029a10ce
Citations in the corpus
- Self-control, revealed preference and consumption choice (2004, unknown): “ Imrohoroglu et al. (2002) do this for the case of time-inconsistent preferences.”
- HYPERBOLIC DISCOUNTING AND POSITIVE OPTIMAL INFLATION (2011, unknown): “However, defining social welfare is not straightforward, because with time-inconsistent preferences, different selves will not necessarily agree on rankings of utility flows [see İmrohoroğlu et al. (2003)]. One approach is to define social welfare as a sum of the utility of all selves at all points ”