Successes and failures in coordinating expectations
Successes and failures in coordinating expectations
复制标题
协调期望的成功和失败
DOI：
10.1016/0014-2921(93)90015-3
复制
发表时间：
1993
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
R. Guesnerie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Guesnerie
理性主体的决策取决于他们对当前条件的感知，也取决于他们对未来将面临的条件的评估，即他们形成（所谓的）预期的条件。事实上，预期不仅在正式的经济分析模型中，而且在经济问题的非正式讨论中，都发挥着至关重要的作用。在正式的经济模型中，目前占主导地位的假设，理性预期假说（从现在开始REH），假设经济决策单位-家庭，企业-有协调的预期。准确地说，理性预期假说假设：（1）所有的经济决策单元都指向相同的未来图景（可以称之为“弱”协调）。由于这种共同参考可能是随机的，只要这种差异反映了信息的差异，它就与对未来情况的不同概率评估相一致。(ii)未来的共同形象是真正的形象（可以称为“真正的”协调）。同样，这里提到的事实是统计学上的事实：从技术上讲，预期在统计学上是正确的。真正的“协调”，或者我用“完全”协调或“强”协调作为同义词，是REH的显著特征。对这种完全协调的批判性评估--这也是本讲座的目的--必然会把我们带回到知识辩论中，
Decisions of rational agents depend on their perception of present conditions but also on their assessment of the conditions they will face in the future-conditions on which they form (so-called) expectations. Expectations indeed play a crucial role not only in formal models of economic analysis but also in the unformal discussion of economic issues. In formal economic modelling, the dominant assumption nowadays, the Rational Expectations Hypothesis(from now on REH), assumes that economic decisions units-households, firms-have coordinated expectations. Precisely, the REH assumes:(i) that all economic decision units refer to the same image of the future (something that could be called ‘weak’coordination). Since such a common reference may be stochastic, it is compatible with different probability assessments of future conditions, as soon as such differences reflect differences in information.(ii) that the common image of the future is the true image (something that could be called ‘true’coordination). Again, the truth that is alluded to is statistical truth: expectations are statistically right-unbiased in technical terms.‘True’coordination, or I will use as synonyms‘full’coordination or ‘strong’coordination, is the distinctive feature of the REH’A critical assessment of such a full coordination assumption-and this is the purpose of this lecture-will necessarily bring us back to the intellectual debate that