ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTERDISCUSSION PAPER

No.151

Optimal Growth and Impatience: A Phase
Diagram Analysis
by
Fwu-Ranq Chang

October 2004

ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTERSCHOOL OF ECONOMICSNAGOYA UNIVERSITY

Optimal Growth and Impatience: A Phase
Diagram Analysis∗
Fwu-Ranq Chang†

Abstract
In this paper we show that we can replace the assumption of constant discount rate in the one-sector optimal growth model with theassumption of decreasing marginal impatience without losing major
properties of the model. In particular, we show that the steady state
exists, is unique, and has a saddle point property. All we need is
to assume that the discount function is convex and has a uniformly
bounded first-derivative.

JEL classification: O41, C61, C62
Key words: Solow equation, decreasing marginal impatience, saddle point,
and bounded slope assumption.

∗

This paper was written in the summer of 2004 when I was a visiting research fellowof Economic Research Center (ERC) of Nagoya University, Japan. I would like to thank
ERC for its hospitality and its excellent research environment. I would also like to thankYuko Arayama for his help in various ways. Naturally, all remaining errors are mine.
†
Corresponding authour: Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN 47405. Tel: 812-855-6070; Fax: 812-855-3736; E-mail:changf@indiana.edu

11Introduction

Since the seminal papers of Koopmans (1960) and Uzawa (1968), economists
have broadened the class of dynamic preferences to include recursive utility
functions to tackle the problems1 arising from the assumption of constantdiscount rate. Lucas and Stokey (1984) assumed increasing marginal impatience to ensure stability. Epstein (1987, pp.73-74) gave three reasons
why employing the assumption of increasing marginal impatience is justified.
Most studies, including the phase diagram analyses of the optimal growthmodels by Chang (1994, 2004) and Drugeon (1996), have focused on thisincreasing marginal impatience case.
The problems with decreasing marginal impatience are, as noted in Epstein (1983, p.140), that in deterministic models there exist many steadystates and that some of them are locally unstable. The finding of “divisionof countries” by Magill and Nishimura (1984) is often cited as a reason toassume increasing marginal impatience. Specifically, Magill and Nishimura
found that if the pure rate of time preference “decreases suﬃciently rapidly”(p.281), then there exists a critical level of capital that separates the richcountries from the poor countries in such a way that the poor countries remain at subsistence, while the rich countries have permanent development.
1

For example, Hicks (1965) argued that successive consumption units are supposed tobe complementary, but an additively separable utility function implies that the marginal
rate of substitution between lunch and dinner is independent of the type of breakfast one
had that morning or expects to have the next morning. See Wan (1970, p.274). Additive
separability also blurs the distinction between risk aversion and intertemporal substitution.
See, for example, Duﬃe and Epstein (1992). Finally, additive separability has a peculiar
long-run implication. Specifically, when there are heterogeneous agents, then, in the longrun, the most patient consumer would own all the capital, while all other agents consume
nothing and pay back their debts with all their labor income. See Becker (1980).

2

This finding, however, begs a question: What would happen to growth theory
if the decrement in the pure rate of time preference were uniformly bounded?
Das (2003) demonstrated that a saddle-point steady state could be consistent with decreasing marginal impatience, using phase diagram analysis.
Unfortunately, her analysis is incomplete and there is a technical error in thephase diagram analysis. These will be explained in the text. Most important,as pointed out in Lucas and Stokey (1984, p.169), the purpose of studying
recursive utility is to see how far we can relax the assumption of convenience,
namely the assumption of constant discount rate, without losing convenience.
Professor Das oﬀered no economic interpretation, other than mathematicalnecessity, for the required stability condition. Therefore, it is not clear whatis the value added of Das (2003) to the literature. As we will show later, herstability assumption would actually create some inconvenience.
This paper studies the existence, the uniqueness, and the stability issueof one-sector optimal growth with decreasing marginal impatience, following
the phase diagram analysis of Chang (1994). To accomplish our goal, we
need only to impose an additional restriction on the discount function, while
keeping the usual assumptions of preferences and technologies employed in
the constant discount rate case. Specifically, we need to assume that the discount function is strictly convex and that the slope of the discount function
at zero consumption is bounded from below. Henceforth, the latter condition is referred to as the “bounded slope” assumption. The convexity andthe bounded slope assumption of the discount function together imply thatthe slope of the discount function is uniformly bounded. A constant discount function can obviously be regarded as its limiting case. In so doing,3

we have extended the scope of growth theory without creating unnecessary
inconveniences.
Under this bounded slope assumption, we show that the steady state of
optimal growth with decreasing marginal impatience exists and is unique.
Furthermore, the steady state has the usual saddle point property. Recall
that, in the constant discount rate case, the curve corresponding to the steadystate of consumption is a vertical line in the phase plane. We show that, in thedecreasing marginal impatience case, the curve corresponding to the steadystate of consumption is obtained from “bending” the upper and lower partsof a vertical line rightward so that it is upward sloping in the upper part anddownward sloping in the lower part. The upper part of the curve is more
like a bell-shaped curve than a C-shaped curve because it is asymptotic toanother vertical line. This steady state retains all qualitative properties ofthe steady state in the constant discount rate case.
The diﬀerences between the case of decreasing marginal impatience andthe case of increasing marginal impatience are in the derivatives of the discount function. Borrowing the results from Chang (1994), we show that thestability results in those two cases are “mirror images” of each other.
Since the decreasing marginal impatience case is a “mirror image” of theincreasing marginal impatience case and conversely, and since the constantdiscount rate case is the limit of either case, we conclude the paper witha unifying presentation that contains all three cases in a single diagram.
It makes clear the eﬀects of monotonic marginal impatience, in comparison
with a constant discount rate, on the steady state consumption and steadystate capital. It also makes a clear statement about the stability analysis of4monotonic marginal impatience and its saddle point property.

2

The Model

The model of optimal growth with decreasing marginal impatience is similar
to the model of increasing marginal impatience of Chang (1994). The majordiﬀerence is in the presentation of the bounded slope assumption.
The law of motion is the standard Solow equationk̇ = f (k) − c − nk.

(1)

The per capita production function f (k) is assumed to be of class C 2 (twice
continuously diﬀerentiable), strictly increasing, strictly concave, satisfying
the Inada conditions:00

f (0) = 0, lim f (k) = ∞, and lim f (k) = 0.
k→0

k→∞

The objective function isZ ∞D (t) U (ct ) dt,(2)0

where U (c) is the instantaneous utility function, which is of class C 2 , strictlyincreasing and strictly concave in c and½ Z t¾
δ (cs ) ds , δ (cs ) > 0,
D (t) = exp −(3)0

is the discount factor at time t. We shall refer to δ (c) as the (instantaneous)discount function.
Clearly, D (t), which assumes values in (0, 1], depends on the underlying
consumption path {cs : s ≤ t}, and is decreasing in time because
0

D (t) = −D (t) δ (ct ) < 0.
5

0

By definition, D (0) = 1 and D (0) = −δ (c0 ) < 0. In the classic case of aconstant discount rate, i.e., δ (ct ) = δ, a constant, we have D (t) = e−δt with0

D (t) = −D (t) δ.
What distinguishes the case of increasing marginal impatience from thecase of decreasing marginal impatience is the functional structure of δ (c).
0

By increasing marginal impatience we mean δ (c) > 0, and by decreasing0

marginal impatience we mean δ (c) < 0. In the case of decreasing marginal00

impatience, we also assume δ (0) = b > 0 and δ (c) > 0 so that δ (c) isdefined for all c ≥ 0. We assume that δ (c) is asymptotic to the horizontal
axis δ = 0 so that
0 < δ (c) ≤ b.

(4)

Then the optimal growth problem with decreasing marginal impatience isformulated asmax (2) , s.t. (1) .
{ct }

(5)

It is standard to verify that the value function of (5), in current value form,
is independent of the initial time, and depends only on the initial capitallabor ratio. Hence, we denote it by J (k). For the moment, we assume
U (c) ≥ 0 so that J (k) ≥ 0. The Bellman equation2 for problem (5) isno0
0 = max U (c) − δ (c) J (k) + [f (k) − c − nk] J (k) .
c(6)

The first-order condition of (6) is000

U (c) − δ (c) J (k) − J (k) = 0,2

(7)

The method of deriving the Bellman equation, the costate equation, and the Euler
equation is standard in the literature. See, for example, Chang (1994, 2004). The stochastic version of the Bellman equation for this class of objective functions is derived in Krylov(1980, p.25) or Chang (2004).

6and the second order suﬃcient condition is0000

U (c) − δ (c) J (k) < 0.

(8)

The second order condition (8) is clearly satisfied because J (k) ≥ 0.
0

Let the costate variable be p = J (k) , which is the shadow price of k.
This shadow price00

p = U (c) − δ (c) J (k)is clearly positive since J (k) ≥ 0. Then, the costate equation ish 0iṗ = −p f (k) − n − δ (c) ,(9)which corresponds to equation (12) in Das (2003). Substituting
00

p = U (c) − δ (c) J (k)into (9), we have the Euler equation00b (k, c) ċ = f (k) − n − δ (c) − δ (c) [f (k) − c − nk] ,
where

(10)

00

00

U (c) − δ (c) J (k).
b (k, c) = − 0
0U (c) − δ (c) J (k)Equation (10) corresponds to equation (15) [after applying her equation (23)]in Das (2003).
The sign of the numerator of b (k, c) is the same as the second order sufficient condition (8), which is negative. The denominator of b (k, c) is the
shadow price p, which is positive. Therefore, b (k, c) > 0 and the Euler equation (10) is nondegenerate. Notice that the sign of the change in consumption(the sign of ċ) is independent of the utility function U (c).
7

3Stability Analysis

To study the phase diagram analysis, we focus on the pair of equations (1) and_(10) in the (k, c)-plane. Let k be the maximal sustainable capital-labor ratio,³_ ´_i.e., f k = nk. We can therefore restrict our discussion to the compact
h _iinterval 0, k .
As discussed in the introductory section, a uniform bound on the slopeof the discount function may be a candidate for stability of optimal growthwith decreasing marginal impatience. Since δ (c) is convex, a lower bound
¯ 0 ¯
0
¯
¯
on δ (0), or an upper bound on ¯δ (0)¯, will be suﬃcient for a uniformly
0bounded δ (c).

Formally, letand³ 0 ´−1³ 0 ´−1
k1 = f(n + b) = f(n + δ (0)) ,³ 0 ´−1³ 0 ´−1 ³´
n + lim δ (c) .
k2 = f(n) = fc→∞

Since b > 0, we have k1 < k2 .

Bounded slope assumption. Assume
µ ¶
h 00
i
0
1
min −f (k) .
−δ (0) ≤b k∈[k1 ,k2 ]The interval [k1 , k2 ] is a compact set and therefore the minimum exists
and is finite. The upper bound is given by the exogenous parameters n, b,
and the production function f (k), and nothing else. In other words, it is the
population growth rate, the production technology and the bounds of δ (c)000that determine the lower bound for δ (0). In particular, if f (k) is mono£ 00
¤
© 00
ª
00
tonic, then mink∈[k1 ,k2 ] −f (k) is simplified to min −f (k1 ) , −f (k2 ) .
8

3.1

Steady State

The steady state, if it exists, is denoted by (kd , cd ). By definition, (kd , cd )satisfies k̇ = ċ = 0, i.e.,f (k) − c − nk = 0,

(11)

and
0

f (k) − n − δ (c) = 0.

(12)

The curve defined by (11), denoted by L1 , is of inverted “U” shape with_k-axis intercepts 0 and k, which is the same as the constant discount ratecase (and increasing marginal impatience case as well).
The curve defined by (12), denoted by L2, is upward sloping, i.e.,
00

dc
f (k)
= 0
> 0,
dk
δ (c)
0

00

because f (k) < 0 and δ (c) < 0. The k-axis intercept (c = 0) of the curve
L2 is k1 . This means that L2 is not defined for k < k1 because δ (c) ≤ b.
0

For k ≥ k2 , we have f (k) − n ≤ 0, which implies that δ (c) ≤ 0 if (12) issatisfied. In other words, L2 is not defined on k ≥ k2 either. In summary, L20

is defined only on [k1, k2 ), and on which 0 < f (k) − n ≤ b.
00

As k approaches k2 from the left, f (k) → n. Along the curve L2 , δ (c) =f (k) − n → 0, and therefore, c → ∞. This observation says that L2 isasymptotic to the vertical line k = k2 . This asymptotic property implies
that the curve L2 must cross L1 at least once, i.e., a steady state always
exists.
To show the uniqueness of the steady state, it suﬃces to show that the0

two curves L1 and L2 cross each other only once. Since 0 < f (k) − n ≤ b
9on [k1, k2 ), we have, for any c,
h 0
i
0
0
−δ (c) f (k) − n ≤ −δ (c) b, for all k ∈ [k1 , k2 ).
0

The above inequality remains valid for k = k2 because f (k2 ) = n. For
0

0

00

any c > 0, we have δ (0) < δ (c) < 0 because δ (c) > 0. It follows that00−δ (c) b < −δ (0) b. Then the bounded slope assumption implies that, for
any c > 0,
h 0
i
0
00
−δ (c) f (k) − n < −f (k) , for all k ∈ [k1, k2] .

(13)

¡ 0
¢
Since (13) is valid for all c > 0, it is valid when c = δ−1 f (k) − n withk ∈ [k1, k2), i.e., as we move along L2 . In this case, we have
00

f (k)
¢.
f (k) − n < 0 ¡ −1 0δ δ (f (k) − n)
0

00

0

This inequality says that the slope of the curve L2 , f (k) /δ (c), is strictly0

greater than the slope of the curve L1 , f (k) − n, at any point in the interval[k1 , k2). This makes the second crossing (including tangency) of the two
curves impossible.
The unique intersection of the two curves L1 and L2 defines the steadystate (kd , cd ), where kd ∈ (k1 , k2 ). That is, the steady state is in the increasing
section of the L1 curve. See Figure 1. In summary, we have
Proposition 1 Under the bounded slope assumption, the steady state of optimal growth with decreasing marginal impatience exists and is unique.
Some comparative dynamics can easily be obtained. A decrease in the
population growth rate, n, “expands” the curve L1 and shifts the curve L2
10

to the right as shown in Figure 2. Steady state consumption and capitalare unambiguously increased. This result is quite intuitive because there aresimply fewer people to feed and to share the existing capital. Similarly, a
Hicks-neutral technical progress, i.e., the new production technology is characterized by Af (k), A > 1, would also expand the curve L1 and shifts thecurve L2 to the right as shown in Figure 2. Again, steady state consumption
and capital are unambiguously increased. This is also quite intuitive because such a technological change represents a scale eﬀect on production andhence on consumption. In both cases, the results resemble the comparative
dynamics of the optimal growth model with a constant discount rate.

3.2

Phase Diagram

Let the curve defined by ċ = 0 be L3 : R (k, c) = 0, where00

R (k, c) = f (k) − n − δ (c) − δ (c) [f (k) − c − nk] .

(14)

The location of the curve L3 can be determined as follows. First, we recognizethat L1 and L2 divide the first quadrant of the (k, c)-plane into four sectors:
A, B, C, and D. See Figure 3. In sector B we have R (k, c) < 0, because itis the region above the curve L1 (i.e., f (k) − c − nk < 0) and below (or to0

the right of) the curve L2 (i.e., f (k) − n − δ (c) < 0). Therefore, the curve
L3 : R (k, c) = 0 cannot lie in this sector. Similarly, in sector C we have
R (k, c) > 0, because it is the region below the curve L1 (i.e., f (k) − c− nk >00) and above (or to the left of) the curve L2 (i.e., f (k) − n − δ (c) > 0).
Again, the curve L3 : R (k, c) = 0 cannot lie in this sector. Therefore, thecurve L3 : R (k, c) = 0 must be located in sector A (above L1 and L2 ) and11sector D (below L1 and L2 ). When L3 is in sector A, we have k < k2.
Similarly, when L3 is in sector D, we have k > k1 .
Next, we examine the behavior of the curve L3 in the strip S defined by
S = {(k, c) : k ∈ [k1, k2 ]} .
For all (k, c) ∈ S, we have

h 0
i
0
00
Rk (k, c) = f (k) − δ (c) f (k) − n < 0,using (13). Applying the implicit function theorem to R (k, c) = 0, k can be
written as a function of c, which has a derivative00

Rcδ (c) [f (k) − c − nk]
dk
=−
.
= 00
0
dc
Rk
f (k) − δ (c) [f 0 (k) − n](15)

[Equation (15) corresponds to equation (A.23) in Das (2003) that computes
dc/dk.] Note that the implicit function theorem applies to all points ofR (k, c) = 0 in S. Inequality (13) implies that the denominator of (15) is
negative on S so that the sign of dk/dc depends only on the sign of the00

numerator of (15). Since δ (c) > 0, dk/dc has a sign opposite of k̇.
If (k, c) lies above L1 , i.e., f (k) − c − nk < 0, then k̇ < 0 and hence k isincreasing in c. Similarly, if (k, c) lies below L1, i.e., f (k) − c − nk > 0, thenk̇ > 0 and hence k is decreasing in c. At (kd , cd ), dk/dc equals zero. Thus,
the curve L3 in the strip S can be obtained from “bending” the upper andlower part of the vertical line k = kd rightward so that it is upward sloping in
the upper part and downward sloping in the lower part. See Figure 4. Using
the expression of a “C-shaped” curve for L3 would be misleading because theupper part of L3 is asymptotic to another vertical line k = k2 . In fact, the12upper part of L3 stays in the strip {(k, c) : kd ≤ k ≤ k2 }, which is smaller
than S.

h_i

If the lower portion of L3 extends to the region k2 , k , the curve is still0

downward sloping. This is because in this region, f (k) ≤ n, which implies
Rk (k, c) < 0, and the implicit function theorem is still applicable. In any
n_oevent, the lower part of L3 stays in the strip (k, c) : kd ≤ k ≤ k .
Now we are ready to determine the vertical arrows of the phase diagram.

Since Rk (k, c) < 0 on [k1, k2 ], R (k, c) > 0 and hence ċ > 0 in the region to
the left of L3 . Similarly, we have R (k, c) < 0 and hence ċ < 0 in the region
to the right of L3 . In summary, the vertical arrows are as follows:ċ < 0 if (k, c) is to the right of L3 ;ċ > 0 if (k, c) is to the left of L3.
The horizontal arrows are the same as the constant discount rate case, i.e.,k̇ < 0 if (k, c) is above the curve L1;k̇ > 0 if (k, c) is below the curve L1.
Combining all arrows, a complete phase diagram is shown in Figure 4.
Proposition 2 The steady state of the optimal growth model with decreasing
marginal impatience is a saddle point.

3.3

The case of U (c) < 0

If U (c) < 0, then J (k) < 0. In this case we need to assume that the second
order suﬃcient condition (8) is valid and that
00

00

δ (c)
U (c)
− 0
≥− 0
.
U (c)
δ (c)
13

(16)

The inequality (16) says that the degree of convexity of δ (c) is greater thanthe degree of concavity of U (c). Then the shadow price of capital-labor ratio
satisfies
"

#
0
δ (c)
p = U (c) − δ (c) J (k) = U (c) 1 − 0
J (k)
U (c)
#
"
00
0
i
U (c) h 00
00
δ (c)
0
J (k) = 00
U (c) − δ (c) J (k) > 0,
≥ U (c) 1 − 00
U (c)
U (c)
0

0

0

the last inequality is obtained from (8). It is then straightforward to verify
that the properties such as the existence, the uniqueness, and the saddle
point property of the steady state remain valid.
It is interesting to point out that, in the case of increasing marginal
impatience, (8) and p > 0 are automatic if U (c) < 0. But assumptions (8)and (16) are required for p > 0 if U (c) ≥ 0. In that case, assumption (16)simply says that δ (c) is more concave than U (c). See Chang (1994) andDrugeon (1996) for details.

3.4

Comments on Das (2003)

For stability analysis, Professor Das assumed the following inequality
h 0
i
00
0
−f (k) > −δ (f (k) − nk) f (k) − n , for all k ∈ (0, k2],

(17)

without oﬀering an economic interpretation. Even though this inequality
resembles (13), they are quite diﬀerent. The simplest explanation is that
inequality (17) is a one-dimensional condition (in k alone), but (13) is a
two-dimensional inequality (in k and c). To elaborate, let
h 0
i
0
00
g (k, c) = f (k) − δ (c) f (k) − n .
14

(18)

Inequality (17) is obtained by substituting c = c (k) = f (k) − nk into (18)so that (17) can be written as g (k, c (k)) < 0. In so doing, the inequality(17) is a condition along, and at best applicable to some neighborhood of,
L1 : c = f (k) − nk, not to the entire first quadrant of the (k, c)-plane. As
such, it is a local condition that cannot be used to analyze the shape of the L3
curve located away from the L1 curve in the (k, c)-plane. Therefore, Professor
Das’s description of the L3 curve, and therefore her stability analysis, isincomplete.
Furthermore, the domain of (17) is (0, k2 ]. As we noted earlier, the curve0

L2 is defined only on [k1 , k2 ). As k → 0, we have f (k) → ∞ and inequality
0(17) may fail. Similarly, inequality (17) may fail if δ (0) is unbounded. Im00

posing conditions on f (k), as k → 0, to tackle the problems just mentioned
would not be in the direction of relaxing the assumptions of convenience.
In addition, Das (2003) studied only the case with U (c) > 0. In contrast,
we extend the stability results to the growth models with decreasing marginal
impatience in which U (c) < 0.
The technical error in Das (2003) is in the stability analysis. The assumption (17) ensures that inequality (13) is valid at the steady state (kd , cd ), i.e.,
h 0
i
0
00
f (kd ) − δ (cd ) f (kd ) − n < 0(19)

so that dk/dc is zero at (kd , cd ). What Professor Das failed to recognize isthat the function g (k, c) is continuous in the (k, c)-plane. By continuity,
if g (kd , cd ) > 0, then we must have g (k, c) > 0 in some neighborhood of(kd , cd ) . That is,

h 0
i
0
00
f (k) − δ (c) f (k) − n < 015

in that neighborhood of (kd , cd ). Therefore it is impossible for the denominator of (15) to change signs in that same neighborhood of (kd , cd ). Instead,
Professor Das argued that the sign of the denominator of (15) is ambiguous.
This error led Professor Das to draw the conclusion that the curve L3 may beof “S” shape as represented by her Figure 3. Most important, this inescapable
error is completely within Professor Das’s own model and framework.

4

All Cases Considered

It would be useful and instructive to compare all cases (decreasing marginal
impatience, constant marginal impatience, and increasing marginal impatience) in a single framework and in the same diagram. To this end, weborrow from Chang (1994) the results of the case of increasing marginal
000

impatience in which δ (c) > 0 and δ (c) < 0.
The curve defined by (12), denoted by L4, is downward sloping, dc/dk <00

00, due to f (k) < 0 and δ (c) > 0. Its k-axis intercept is³ 0 ´−1³ 0 ´−1k3 = f(n + δ (0)) < f(n) = k2 .
Therefore, the curve L4 intersects the curve L1 at its upward sloping portionand the intersection is unique. Denote it by (ki , ci ). See Figure 5. Notice
that, unlike the decreasing marginal impatience case, the steady state (ki , ci )is uniquely determined without a bounded slope assumption.
The curves L1 and L4 partition the first quadrant of the (k, c)-plane into
four sectors. It can be verified that the curve L5 : R (k, c) = 0 is located in
sector B that is above the curve L1 and to the right of L4 , and in sector Cthat is below the curve L1 and to the left of the curve L4 . See Figure 6.
16

The phase diagram can be obtained similarly. Let the curve defined byċ = 0 be L5 : R (k, c) = 0, where R (k, c) is defined in (14). It is shown in
h _i
Chang (1994), using the strict concavity of δ (c), that R (k, c) < 0 on k2 , k
for any c. Therefore, the location of the curve L5 is in the strip{(k, c) : k ∈ [0, k2 ]} .
£ 0
¤
0
00
In this strip, f (k) − δ (c) f (k) − n < 0, i.e., (13) is always satisfied.

Notice that we do not need to assume a bounded slope condition in this case.

The phase diagram of optimal growth with increasing marginal impatienceis drawn in Figure 7.
The case of constant impatience δ (c) = δ is well-known. See, for example,
0Intriligator (1971). In that case, the curve associated with ċ = 0 (or f (k) −n − δ = 0) is a vertical line, k = k0 , wherek0 = f −1 (n + δ) .
The phase diagram is reproduced in Figure 8.
To make meaningful connections among the three cases, we have to relate
the constant δ in the constant discount rate case to δ (0) in the other twocases. In the increasing marginal impatience case, we assume δ (0) = δ(i.e., k0 = k3) so that δ (c) > δ for all c > 0. In the decreasing marginal
impatience case, we assume δ (0) = b = δ (i.e., k0 = k1) so that δ (c) < δ forall c > 0. Treated this way, the constant discount rate becomes the limitingcase of both decreasing and increasing marginal impatience growth models.
Figure 9 shows the relative position of the steady states among the threecases. Figure 10 shows that the eﬀect of changing from constant marginal
impatience to monotonic marginal impatience is simply to shift and bend
17the vertical line k = k0 ; the rest of the stability analysis essentially remains
unchanged.

5Concluding Remarks

In this paper we show that we can replace the assumption of constant discount rate in the one-sector growth model with decreasing marginal impatience without losing any major properties of the model. In particular, themajor properties such as the existence, the uniqueness, and the saddle pointproperty of the steady state remain valid. All we need is to assume that thediscount function is convex and has a uniformly bounded first-derivative.
We also show that the phase diagram analysis of the optimal growthwith decreasing marginal impatience is “symmetric” to the phase diagram
analysis of the optimal growth with increasing marginal impatience, and thatthe constant discount rate case can be regarded as the limiting case of either
model. It suggests that there is no longer any excuse to restrict ourselvesto the assumption of constant discount rate, at least for the continuous-time
one-sector optimal growth model.
The bounded slope assumption is closely related to the work of Magill andNishimura (1984). However, it is not always true that continuous-time results
would automatically imply discrete-time ones, nor the converse. See Chang(1988, 2004) for discussion. The eﬀects of the bounded slope assumption
on the discrete time models remain to be investigated. This is for future
research.

18

References[1] Becker, Robert (1980), “On the Long-Run Steady State in a Simple Dynamic Model of Equilibrium with Heterogeneous Households,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95, 375-382.
[2] Chang, Fwu-Ranq (1988), “Inverse Optimal Problem: A Dynamic Programming Approach,” Econometrica, 56(1), 147-172.
[3] Chang, Fwu-Ranq (1994), “Optimal Growth and Recursive Utility,”
Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 80(3), 425-439.
[4] Chang, Fwu-Ranq (2004), Stochastic Optimization in Continuous Time,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[5] Das, Mausumi (2003), “Optimal Growth with Decreasing Marginal Impatience,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27, 18811898.
[6] Drugeon, Jean-Pierre (1996), “Impatience and Long Run Growth,”
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 20, 281-313.
[7] Epstein, Larry (1983), “Stationary Cardinal Utility and Optimal Growthunder Uncertainty,” Journal of Economic Theory, 31, 133-152.
[8] Epstein, Larry (1987), “A Simple Dynamic General Equilibrium Model,”Journal of Economic Theory, 41, 68-95.
[9] Hicks, John (1965), Capital and Growth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[10] Intriligator, Michael, (1971), Mathematical Optimization and Economic
Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliﬀs, N.J.
19

[11] Koopmans, Tjalling (1960), “Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience,” Econometrica 28, 287-301.
[12] Krylov, N.V. (1980), Controlled Diﬀusion Processes, Springer-Verlag,
New York.
[13] Lucas, Robert E., Jr. and Nancy Stokey (1984), “Optimal Growth with
Many Consumers,” Journal of Economic Theory, 32, 454-475.
[14] Magill, Michael and Kazuo Nishimura (1984), “Impatience and Accumulation,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 98,
270-281.
[15] Uzawa, H. (1968), “Time Preference, the Consumption Function, andOptimum Asset Holdings,” in Value, Capital, and Growth: Papers
in Honor of Sir John Hicks, N.J. Wolfe (ed.), Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh, Scotland.
[16] Wan, Henry, Jr. (1970), Economic Growth, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
New York.

20

c
L2
cd

L1

0

k1

kd k2

k

Figure 1: Existence and uniqueness of the steady state

c

k

0

Figure 2: Comparative Dynamics
21

c

L2
A

B

L1
D

C

0

k

k1

Figure 3: The curve L3 lies in region A and region D.

c
L3
L1

k

0

Figure 4: The steady state is a saddle point
22

c
L4
L1
ci

0

ki

k

k

3

Figure 5: Existence and uniqueness of the steady state (increasing marginal
impatience)

c
L4
B

L1

A
D

C
0

k3

k

Figure 6: The curve L5 lies in sector B and C
23

c
L5
L1

k

0

Figure 7: The steady state is a saddle point (increasing marginal impatience)

c

0

k
k0

Figure 8: The phase diagram of constant discount rate case24cfN(k) = n + *
L4
L1

L2

0

ki

k

kd

Figure 9: Comparison of the location of the steady states

c

0

L5

L3

k
k0

Figure 10: To change from constant marginal impatience to non-constant
one is to bend the vertical line k = k025