PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 1977Journal of Political Economy7,981 citations

Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans

View Full Paper
FKFinn E. KydlandUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraEPEdward C. PrescottAustralian National University

Key Points

  • This work investigates why discretionary policies fail to maximize social objectives even with clear goals and rational expectations.
  • Theoretical analysis of discretionary policy versus rule-based decision-making
  • Discussion of the implications of rational economic agents on planning
  • Evaluation of control theory applicability in economic contexts
  • Discretionary policy does not maximize social objective functions despite fixed goals.
  • Economic planning should prioritize rules over discretion to align with rational expectations.
  • Control theory is inapplicable to economic planning when agents act rationally.

Abstract

Even if there is an agreed-upon, fixed social objective function and policymakers know the timing and magnitude of the effects of their actions, discretionary policy, namely, the selection of that decision which is best, given the current situation and a correct evaluation of the end-of-period position, does not result in the social objective function being maximized. The reason for this apparent paradox is that economic planning is not a game against nature but, rather, a game against rational economic agents. We conclude that there is no way control theory can be made applicable to economic planning when expectations are rational.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kydland et al. (1977) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b483dafa754ef7ec76e18ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/260580
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper