We show that the theory developed in Scholten and Read (2006) “Discounting by Intervals: A Generalized Model of Intertemporal Choice”, Management Science, 52, 1424-1436, is an inconsistent theory. We suggest a way the inconsistency can be removed.Intertemporal choice; non-additive time discounting

Ali al-Nowaihi

Sanjit Dhami

English

Research Papers in Economics

 
 
 
 
 
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS 
   
 
 
DISCOUNTING BY INTERVALS:  
AN INCONSISTENT THEORY OF 
INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE? 
 
 
Ali al-Nowaihi, University of Leicester, UK 
Sanjit Dhami, University of Leicester, UK  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Working Paper No. 08/10 
April 2008 
 
 Discounting by intervals: An inconsistent theory of
intertemporal choice?
Ali al-Nowaihi￿ Sanjit Dhamiy
11 April 2008
Abstract
We show that the theory developed in Scholten and Read (2006) ￿Discounting
by Intervals: A Generalized Model of Intertemporal Choice￿ , Management Science,
52, 1424-1436, is an inconsistent theory. We suggest a way the inconsistency can be
removed.
Keywords: Intertemporal choice, non-additive time discounting..
JEL Classi￿cation Codes: C60(General: Mathematical methods and program-
ming); D91(Intertemporal consumer choice).
￿Department of Economics, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester. LE1 7RH, UK. Phone:
+44-116-2522898. Fax: +44-116-2522908. E-mail: aa10@le.ac.uk.
yDepartment of Economics, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester. LE1 7RH, UK. Phone:
+44-116-2522086. Fax: +44-116-2522908. E-mail: Sanjit.Dhami@le.ac.uk.Bertrand Russell: An inconsistent theory is useless, because from it we can prove any-
thing.
Heckler: Starting from 4 = 5, can you prove you are the Bishop of Rome?
Russell: Subtract 3 from each side to get 1 = 2. The Bishop of Rome and I are two
people, two equals one, therefore I am the Bishop of Rome.
1. Introduction
In a clear and beautifully written paper, Scholten and Read (2006) give an account of
recent experimental results, including their own experiments, that shed further light on
intertemporal choice. In particular, their experimental results support the hypothesis
that time discounting is non-additive. They also propose a new discounting function,
the discounting by intervals function, that encompasses some of the earlier discounting
functions, for example, exponential discounting and generalized hyperbolic discounting;
and ￿ts the empirical evidence better. However, we show that the theoretical model of
Scholten and Read (2006) is inconsistent. We suggest a way in which the inconsistency
can be removed.
2. Discounting by intervals
Let D(tS;tL) be the discount function from time tL back to time tS, 0 ￿ tS ￿ tL. In
particular, D(0;tS) and D(0;tL) discount, respectively, from times tS and tL back to time
0. Scholten and Read (2006) propose the following discounting by intervals function:
D(tS;tL) =
h
1 + ￿(t
￿
L ￿ t
￿
S)
#
i￿
￿
￿
, 0 ￿ tS ￿ tL, ￿ > 0, ￿ > 0, ￿ > 0, # > 0. (2.1)
As special, or limiting, cases of (2.1) we get exponential discounting and a number of other
discounting functions including Harvey (1986), Mazur (1987), Rachlin (1989), Lowenstein
and Prelec (1992) and Read (2001).
Let v (x) be the utility of x when x is received. Let V (x;t) be the utility, discounted
back to time 0, of x received at time t. Assume that v is strictly increasing and, for
simplicity, assume v (0) = 0. Let
xL > 0, (2.2)
0 ￿ tS ￿ tL. (2.3)
Hence,
V (xL;tL) = D(0;tL)v (xL), (2.4)
1The second equation in the pair of equations (4) in Scholten and Read (2006, p1427)
states that
V (xL;tL) = D(0;tS)D(tS;tL)v (xL), (2.5)
i.e., the utility of xL discounted from tL back to tS then back to 0 is the same as the utility
of xL discounted from tL back to 0.
From (2.4) and (2.5) we get
D(0;tL)v (xL) = D(0;tS)D(tS;tL)v (xL). (2.6)
Since, xL > 0, v (0) = 0 and v is strictly increasing, we get v (xL) > 0. In particular,
v (xL) 6= 0. Hence, (2.6) gives
D(0;tL) = D(0;tS)D(tS;tL), (2.7)
Substituting from (2.1) into (2.7) gives
￿
1 + ￿t
￿#
L
￿￿
￿
￿ =
￿
1 + ￿t
￿#
S
￿￿
￿
￿
h
1 + ￿(t
￿
L ￿ t
￿
S)
#
i￿
￿
￿
, (2.8)
then successive algebraic steps give
1 + ￿t
￿#
L =
￿
1 + ￿t
￿#
S
￿h
1 + ￿(t
￿
L ￿ t
￿
S)
#
i
,
1 + ￿t
￿#
L = 1 + ￿t
￿#
S + ￿
￿
1 + ￿t
￿#
S
￿
(t
￿
L ￿ t
￿
S)
# ,
￿t
￿#
L = ￿t
￿#
S + ￿
￿
1 + ￿t
￿#
S
￿
(t
￿
L ￿ t
￿
S)
# ,
t
￿#
L = t
￿#
S +
￿
1 + ￿t
￿#
S
￿
(t
￿
L ￿ t
￿
S)
# . (2.9)
The right hand side of (2.9) is a non-constant function of tS, which can be any real number
in the interval [0;tL]. However, tS does not occur in the left hand side of (2.9). Hence,
(2.9) cannot be satis￿ed (except in the special cases tS = 0 or tS = tL)1.
3. Removing the inconsistency
The source of the inconsistency is as follows. The Scholten and Read discounting by
intervals function (2.1) is designed to be in line with the empirical evidence that time dis-
counting is non-additive. Of course, Scholten and Read (2006) do not, in general, assume
additivity of time preferences. However, the second equation of their pair of equations (4),
reproduced above as (2.5), is a particular instance of the additivity assumption. Unfortu-
nately, this one instance is su¢ cient to produce the inconsistency.
1The special case tS = 0 and ￿ = # = 1 gives the generalized hyperbolic discounting function of
Loewenstein and Prelec (1992).
2As in section 2, D(tS;tL) is the discount function from time tL back to time tS, 0 ￿
tS ￿ tL. In particular, D(0;tS) and D(0;tL) discount, respectively, from times tS and tL
back to time 0.
Let
V (xn;t1;t2;:::;tn), 0 ￿ t1 ￿ t2 ￿ ::: ￿ tn, (3.1)
be the discounted value at time t1 of the utility of xn, received at time tn, and discounted
back to t1 through the intermediate time points t2;:::;tn￿1. For example, for n = 2,
x2 = xS, t1 = 0 and t2 = tS, (3.1) becomes V (xS;0;tS). For n = 3, x3 = xL, t1 = 0,
t2 = tS, and t3 = tL, (3.1) becomes V (xL;0;tS;tL), where 0 ￿ tS ￿ tL. Non-additivity
introduces a non-Markov feature, so in the authors￿notation ￿V (xS;tS)￿and ￿V (xL;tL)￿
are ambiguous. By contrast, our suggested notation (3.1) explicitly gives the history of
the discounting process.
To remove the inconsistency, we replace (2.4) by
V (xS;0;tS) = D(0;tS)v (xS), (3.2)
and replace (2.5) by
V (xL;0;tS;tL) = D(0;tS)D(tS;tL)v (xL), (3.3)
where V (xL;0;tS;tL) is, in general, not the same as V (xL;0;tL).
To derive the rest of their model, consider the two allocations:
Allocation SS: xS is received at time tS and is discounted back to time 0 in one step,
(3.4)
Allocation LL: xL is received at time tL, discounted back to time tS, then to time 0.
(3.5)
The allocations (3.4) and (3.5) are chosen by experimental design so that they are equiv-
alent, i.e.,
V (xS;0;tS) = V (xL;0;tS;tL). (3.6)
This appears to be in accord with the authors￿intension. We quote from their ￿rst para-
graph under ￿Discounting by Intervals￿ , p1427:
￿According to our model [Scholten and Read (2006)], SS is discounted
over the interval 0 ! tS, while LL is discounted over the consecutive intervals
0 ! tS and tS ! tL. As a result, discounting over the interval tS ! tL has a
primitive, rather than derivative status.￿
The rest of their model follows without any further inconsistencies.
3In brief, non-additivity, which is the experimental ￿nding in Read (2001) and in
Scholten and Read (2006) introduces a non-Markov feature. The result is that ￿ discounted
utility￿is no more a function of the ￿nal state but of the entire history. The theoretical
model of Scholten and Read (2006), however, misses this critical insight. For that reason,
(2.4), (2.5), lead to an additive formulation (which is counter to the experimental ￿ndings)
and, hence, to a fundamental inconsistency, which can be deduced from (2.9). Our pro-
posed reformulation in section 3 explicitly takes account of the non-Markov feature arising
from non-additivity. This is re￿ ected in (3.2) and (3.3). V (xL;tL) is de￿ned to be the
present value of the utility of xL, received at time tL, discounted to time 0. However, cru-
cially, and unlike Scholten and Read (2006), V (xL;tL) cannot then be used to represent
allocation LL which denotes the present value of the utility of xL, received at time tL,
discounted back to time tS, then to time 0: This leads us to resolve the inconsistency.
4. Conclusion
Decision makers may exhibit inconsistent behavior (and there is a large body of experimen-
tal evidence supporting this). However, the theories (or models) constructed to explain
such behavior have to be consistent (as all theories/models have to be). The ￿ discounting
by interval￿function of Scholten and Read (2006) may describe well actual behavior of
decision makers. But the ￿ discounting by intervals￿theory of intertemporal choice that
Scholten and Read (2006) construct is inconsistent. We suggest a minimal modi￿cation
that would render their theory consistent.
References
[1] Harvey, C.M. 1986. Value functions for in￿nite-period planning. Management Science,
32, 1123-1139.
[2] Loewenstein, G., D. Prelec. 1992. Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an
interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573-597.
[3] Mazur, J.E. 1987. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. M. L.
Commons, J. E. Mazur, L. A. Nevin, H. Rachlin, eds. Quantitative Analyses of Behav-
ior, Volume 5. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 55-73.
[4] Rachlin, H. 1989. Judgment, Decision, and Choice. Freeman, New York.
[5] Read, D. 2001. Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 23, 5-32.
4[6] Scholten, M., D. Read. 2006. Discounting by intervals: A generalized model of in-
tertemporal choice. Management Science, 52, 1424-1436.
5

Discounting by intervals: An inconsistent theory of intertemporal choice?

http://www.le.ac.uk/economics/research/RePEc/lec/leecon/dp08-10.pdf

Discounting by intervals: An inconsistent theory of intertemporal choice?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics