THIS PAPER is concerned with the practical application of optimal control techniques to the macroeconomic policy design problem using empirically based econometric models which embody forward-looking behaviour. In the context of UK models, such work can be divided into two broad approaches. One involves the application of well known non-linear optimal control algorithms directly to non-linear rational expectations models, as in Holly and Zarrop (1983) and Westaway and Wren-Lewis (1993).1 In the other, linearised versions of non-linear models are derived, allowing the more tractable properties of linear rational expectations models to be exploited, as in Christodoulakis et al. (1991) and Weale et al. (1989). Surprisingly, relatively little work has been done to reconcile these two approaches, in particular to compare the policy implications which might emerge from applying the different techniques to the same problem. In this paper we explain why these differences are important by emphasising the role of the finite horizon. We show that this can seriously distort the optimal control outcome. Typically, macroeconomic models are large and non-linear; for example the National Institute model of the UK economy on which the empirical analysis in this paper is based contains just over 350 variables with the behavioural content embodied in around half of these (see NIESR 1991). Inevitably, this forward-looking model can only be solved using numerical techniques, such as the extended Gauss-Seidel method discussed by Fisher and Hughes Hallet (1988). These solution techniques can be computationally expensive especially when the dominant unstable root of the model associated with this forwardlooking behaviour is close to the unit circle. By contrast, linear models, or linearised versions of non-linear models, can be solved at much less computational expense, even for rational expectations models (using, for example, the method suggested by Blanchard and Kahn 1980). When considering the policy design problem, an important implication of having to solve models by numerical methods is the need to replace analytic infinite horizon solutions by finite horizon approximation. The significance arises in two ways. First, in the presence of forward-looking expectations, any finite horizon model solution requires the imposition of a terminal condition
Read full abstract