February 21, 2012, Christopher D. Carroll HamiltonianVSDiscrete
This handout solves the Ramsey/Cass-Koopmans (RCK) model using the Hamiltonian method, and shows the relationship between that method and the discrete-time approach.
The problem is to choose a path of consumption per capita
from the
present moment (arbitrarily called time 0) into the infinite future,
, that
solves problem
![]() | (1) |
subject to

is the time preference rate,
is the population growth rate, and
is
the depreciation rate. (In continuous time, we think of all variables as implicitly
being a function of time, but it is cumbersome to write, e.g.,
everywhere,
so the time argument is omitted; we are also thinking of the initial value of
capital at date 0 as being a ‘given’ in the problem, so that
for some
specific value of
).
To emphasize the similarity between the continuous-time and the discrete-time
solutions, we define ‘curly’ value as a function of the initial level of capital as
.
The current-value (discounted) Hamiltonian is
![]() | (4) |
where
is the state variable,
is the control variable, and
is the costate
variable.
is the continuous-time equivalent of a Lagrange multiplier, so its
value should be equivalent to the value of relaxing the corresponding
constraint by an infinitesimal amount. But the constraint in question is the
capital-accumulation constraint. Thus
should be equal to the value of having
a tiny bit more capital,
. In other words, you can think of
.
The first necessary condition for optimality is
Note the similarity between (7) and the result we usually obtain by using the Envelope theorem in the discrete-time problem,

The second necessary condition is
which expresses the growth rate of
at an annual rate (because the
interest rate
and time preference rate
are measured at an annual
rate).
To interpret this in terms of our discrete-time model, begin with the condition

The final necessary condition is just that the accumulation equation for capital is satisfied,
![]() | (12) |
This is the continuous-time equivalent of what we have previously called the Dynamic Budget Constraint.
Up to now in this course we haven’t thought very much about what the time
period is. Generally, we have expressed things in terms of yearly rates, so that for
example we might choose
and
to
represent an interest rate of 4 percent and a discount rate of 4 percent.
One of the attractive features of the time-consistent model we have been using
is that it generates self-similar behavior as the time interval is changed. Thus if
we wanted to solve a quarterly version of the model we would choose
and
and it would imply consumption of almost
exactly 1/4 of the amount implied by the annual model, so that four
quarters of such behavior would aggregate to the prediction of the annual
model.
To put this in the most general form, suppose
and
correspond to
‘annual rate’ values and we want to divide the year into
periods. Then the
appropriate interest rate and discount factor on a per-period basis would be
and
. Thus the discrete-time equation could be rewritten

th of a year (e.g. if
=52, we’re talking
weekly, so that period
is one week after period
). Now we can use our
old friend, the fact that
, to note that this is approximately
We
defined the interest rate and time preference rate on an annual basis, but the
time interval between
and
is only
th of a year. Thus
expresses the speed of change in
at an annual
rate.
Now, note that since the effective interest rate in this model is
, equation (22) is basically the same as (10) since
and
. Hence, the second optimality condition
in the Hamiltonian optimization method is basically equivalent to the
condition
from the discrete-time optimization
method!
The final required condition (the transversality constraint) is

The translation of this into the discrete-time model is
![]() | (24) |
Consider the simple model with a constant gross interest rate
and CRRA
utility. In that model, recall that
. Thus considered from time
zero (24) becomes
![lim βt (c ((R β )1∕ρ)t)- ρk = 0 (25)
t→ ∞ 0 t
- ρ t t∕ρ - ρ
= c0 β [(R β ) ] kt (26)
= c- ρβtβ - tR - tk (27)
0 t
= c-0 ρR - tkt (28)
- t
→ lim R kt = 0. (29)
t→ ∞](HamiltonianVSDiscrete57x.png)
What this says is that you cannot behave in such a way
that you expect
to grow faster than the interest rate
forever.1
This is the infinite-horizon version of the intertemporal budget constraint.
Among the infinite number of time paths of
and
that will satisfy the first
order conditions above, only one will also satisfy this transversality constraint -
because all the others imply a violation of the intertemporal budget
constraint.
Now differentiate (6) with respect to time

.