IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tky/fseres/2001cf115.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Model of Keynesian under Knightian Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Shin-ichi Fukuda

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore a source of nominal price rigidity and non-neutrality of money in a model of monopolistic competition under Knightian uncertainty. The decision-making theory in the analysis is that of expected utility under a nonadditive probability measure, that is, the Choquet expected utility model of preference. We apply this decision theory to a model of monopolistic competition without fixed cost of price adjustment. We show that when aversion to Knightian uncertainty exists, nominal price becomes rigid in a model of monopolistic competition. The model therefore has a Keynesian feature that nominal disturbances, particularly anticipated changes of money supply, have real effects on aggregate output fluctuations. The feature holds even if aversion to Knightian uncertainty is very small.

Suggested Citation

  • Shin-ichi Fukuda, 2001. "A Model of Keynesian under Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-115, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    • Handle: RePEc:tky:fseres:2001cf115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirje.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/research/dp/2001/2001cf115.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N. Gregory Mankiw, 1985. "Small Menu Costs and Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(2), pages 529-538.
    2. George A. Akerlof & Janet L. Yellen, 1985. "A Near-Rational Model of the Business Cycle, with Wage and Price Inertia," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(Supplemen), pages 823-838.
    3. Blinder, Alan S, 1991. "Why Are Prices Sticky? Preliminary Results from an Interview Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 89-96, May.
    4. Aizenman, Joshua, 1997. "Investment in new activities and the welfare cost of uncertainty," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 259-277, April.
    5. Gerd Weinrich, 1997. "Endogenous fixprices and sticky price adjustment of risk-averse firms," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 283-305, October.
    6. Cecchetti, Stephen G., 1986. "The frequency of price adjustment : A study of the newsstand prices of magazines," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 255-274, April.
    7. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    8. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    9. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    10. Anil K Kashyap, 1995. "Sticky Prices: New Evidence from Retail Catalogs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 245-274.
    11. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    12. Weinrich, Gerd, 1997. "Endogenous Fixprices and Sticky Price Adjustment of Risk-averse Firms," MPRA Paper 6302, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ozaki, Hiroyuki & Streufert, Peter A., 1996. "Dynamic programming for non-additive stochastic objectives," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 391-442.
    14. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    15. Truman F. Bewley, 1986. "Knightian Decision Theory: Part 1," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 807, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    2. Martha Misas A. & Enrique López E. & Juan Carlos Parra A., 2013. "La formación de precios en las empresas colombianas: evidencia a partir de una encuesta directa," Investigación Conjunta-Joint Research, in: Laura Inés D'Amato & Enrique López Enciso & María Teresa Ramírez Giraldo (ed.), Dinámica inflacionaria, persistencia y formación de precios y salarios, edition 1, chapter 11, pages 273-348, Centro de Estudios Monetarios Latinoamericanos, CEMLA.
    3. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    4. Jens-Peter Loy & Christoph Weiss, 2002. "Staggering and synchronisation of prices in a low-inflation environment: Evidence from German food stores," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 437-457.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7323 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Marinacci, Massimo, 2000. "Ambiguous Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-219, May.
    8. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    9. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    10. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard C. Schipper, 2009. "Ambiguity and social interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 355-379, April.
    11. Massimo Guidolin & Francesca Rinaldi, 2013. "Ambiguity in asset pricing and portfolio choice: a review of the literature," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 183-217, February.
    12. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    13. Lo, Kin Chung, 2000. "Epistemic conditions for agreement and stochastic independence of [epsi]-contaminated beliefs," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 207-234, March.
    14. Daniela Grieco, 2018. "Innovation and stock market performance: A model with ambiguity-averse agents," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 287-303, April.
    15. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    16. LANGE Andreas & TREICH Nicolas, 2007. "Uncertainty, Learning and Ambiguity in Economic Models on Climate Policy: Some Classical Results and New Directions," LERNA Working Papers 07.16.237, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    17. David Dequech, 2008. "Varieties of uncertainty: a survey of the economic literature," Anais do XXXVI Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 36th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 200807211223070, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    18. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    19. Umberto Cherubini, 1997. "Fuzzy measures and asset prices: accounting for information ambiguity," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 135-149.
    20. Woodward, Richard T., 1998. "Should Agricultural And Resource Economists Care That The Subjective Expected Utility Hypothesis Is False?," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20941, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tky:fseres:2001cf115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CIRJE administrative office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ritokjp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.