<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">TEL</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Theoretical Economics Letters</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-2078</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/tel.2012.25087</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">TEL-25804</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Business&amp;Economics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Equilibrium Dynamics in the Neoclassical Growth Model with Habit Formation and Elastic Labor Supply
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>anuel</surname><given-names>A. Gómez</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Department of Applied Economics II, University of A Coru?a</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>mago@udc.es</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>19</day><month>12</month><year>2012</year></pub-date><volume>02</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>465</fpage><lpage>469</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>September</day>	<month>15,</month>	<year>2012</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>October</day>	<month>16,</month>	<year>2012</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>November</day>	<month>18,</month>	<year>2012</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  This note analyzes the equilibrium dynamics in the neoclassical growth model with habit-forming preferences and elastic labor supply. Habits enter into utility in a multiplicative way. The specification of the habit formation process comprises the particular cases of internal and external habits. Existence, uniqueness and saddle-path stability of the steady state are proved analytically.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Economic Growth; Habit Formation; Equilibrium Dynamics</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>This note analyzes the equilibrium dynamics in the neoclassical growth model with habit formation and elastic labor supply. In our model utility is additively separable and CRRA in adjusted consumption and leisure, and habits enter utility in a multiplicative way. These are specifications commonly used in the literature. Specifically, we demonstrate analytically that the steady state is unique and (locally) saddle-path stable, so that the equilibrium is (locally) uniquely determined.</p><p>Habit-forming preferences have been widely incorporated to dynamic macroeconomic models. The reason is that they help to explain some empirical facts difficult to accommodate with standard time-separable preferences as, e.g., the equity premium puzzle (e.g., [1,2]), the savings-growth nexus (e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref3">3</xref>]) or the effects of monetary policy (e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref4">4</xref>]). In habit-formation models individual’s utility depends on her current consumption and also on how it compares to a reference level of consumption— the habits stock. The literature distinguishes between internal habits (IH), which are formed from individual’s own past consumption (e.g., [2,4]), and external habits (EH), which are formed from average economy-wide past consumption (e.g. [1,5]). Hence, we consider a specification of the habit formation process which comprises the particular cases of internal and external habits.</p><p>Previous work has analyzed the equilibrium dynamics of growth models with habit formation, mainly in AKtype growth models (e.g. [6-10]). However, in all these works labor supply is assumed to be inelastically provided. A notable exception is [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref11">11</xref>], which considers a growth model with elastic labor supply. Given the complexity of the system that drives the dynamics of the economy, saddle-point stability of the steady state in this kind of models is often taken as guaranteed and sometimes supported by numerical simulations (e.g. [9,11])1. The present paper demonstrates that economies, as described above, do in fact generally have saddlepoint stable steady states. Therefore, this paper is also related to previous works that study analytically the stability properties of equilibrium in growth models (e.g. [12,13]), or that intend to provide solid mathematical foundations to growth models with habit formation (e.g., [8,14,15]).</p><p>The remaining of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the model. Section 3 analyzes the equilibrium dynamics. Section 4 concludes.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Setup of the Model</title><p>Consider an economy populated by N identical infinitely-lived representative agents that grows at the exogenous rate<img src="11-1500243\31dcb35c-be4e-4a40-87fc-18357d0f0a44.jpg" />. The intertemporal utility derived by the agent is</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22780"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\4efca474-ddbd-42b8-b21b-2bad78dee470.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where C<sub>i</sub> and H<sub>i</sub> are agent’s i consumption and reference consumption level (habits stock), respectively, L<sub>i</sub> is agent’s i work time, g reflects the importance of habits in utility, b is the rate of time preference, h denotes the inverse of the labor supply elasticity, and 1/e is the intertemporal elasticity of substitution of consumption in the time-separable case<img src="11-1500243\4e9a7dba-9716-43f0-82e8-287124f5a35c.jpg" />. The assumption that <img src="11-1500243\2254df45-73b7-4bd1-a991-c5ae40f9f0fa.jpg" /> is taken from [8,14], which show that otherwise the optimization problem might not be well-defined in a similar model with inelastic labor supply.</p><p>Following [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref9">9</xref>], the reference consumption level is formed as an exponentially declining average of past consumption according to</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22781"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\fd237508-95f1-4aeb-a45e-49d080de518a.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <img src="11-1500243\0761ca58-7fd8-49d3-a119-e0d5613d152f.jpg" /> denotes the economy-wide average consumption. Setting f = 1 corresponds to the internal habit formation case, in which the reference stock is formed as an exponentially declining average of own past consumption. Setting f = 0 corresponds to the external habit formation case, in which the reference stock is formed as an exponentially declining average of economy-wide average past consumption. The case 0 &lt; f &lt; 1 corresponds to an intermediate case, in which the reference stock is formed as an exponentially declining average of own and average past consumption. The rate of adjustment of the reference stock is then</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22782"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\96e8e48e-35df-43c5-b441-13d644da47a3.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Individual output, Y<sub>i</sub>, is determined by the CobbDouglas technology</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22783"><label>, (4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\24787d25-2c1d-4b9b-b532-06a9dae3416d.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where K<sub>i</sub> is the individual’s capital stock. The agent’s budget constraint is</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22784"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\32a57e18-e043-45fc-b2bb-650f96e0481c.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where d is the rate of depreciation of capital.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. The Equilibrium</title><p>The agent chooses C<sub>i</sub>, L<sub>i</sub>, K<sub>i</sub>, and H<sub>i</sub> to maximize individual’s intertemporal utility (1) subject to her budget constraint (5) and the constraint on the accumulation of the habits stock (3). Let J be the current value Hamiltonian of the agent’s optimization problem,</p><p><img src="11-1500243\b92519e9-5468-4c7e-8d18-399f7afd544e.jpg" /></p><p>The first-order conditions for an interior optimum are</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22785"><label>(6a)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\e08134ae-2353-4500-947d-92341292d0a8.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22786"><label>(6b)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\9a651eeb-4c0b-4a5f-a738-11119ee8bab1.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22787"><label>(6c)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\c3a0306f-3407-4f27-a410-47c193cd8c6f.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22788"><label>(6d)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\e7090d12-fcdd-4f01-b6b5-eafa10b23ec2.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>plus the transversality condition</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22789"><label>(6e)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\2c786241-83c2-41aa-ac58-b03d1a5c8471.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>We focus on a symmetric equilibrium in which, with all agents being identical, <img src="11-1500243\0dd20089-cb39-4321-a6bc-7c2ace5926a6.jpg" />. Hence, (6a) yields</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22790"><label>. (7)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\8b7e5e87-fd93-45af-b138-53b45848f420.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Defining<img src="11-1500243\57cd7142-c283-4e16-a88d-efff97b3152a.jpg" />, from (7) we get</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22791"><label>, (8a)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\0061c1c6-f620-4636-a585-8d08c73e8b74.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22792"><label>(8b)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\02ea90e0-e9e9-41a8-99c0-5c150eef6475.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>From (6b) and (8a), we find the following expression of the work time L as a function of K, C, H and q:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22793"><label>(9)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\540035b0-e009-432e-8b9e-83edbb9f6c03.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Differentiating (7) with respect to time, we get</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22794"><label>. (10)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\cb14dff6-4297-4a57-a059-35eba1752f0e.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>From (7) and (6b), we obtain</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22795"><label>(11)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\38382bdb-0892-46bc-9c44-2b5964dde24e.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The system that drives the dynamics of the economy is</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22796"><label>(12a)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\e7efd095-b92c-4e9d-8e99-c7d9b656aea0.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22797"><label>(12b)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\6c652318-26c1-4990-8bf9-fc37eeff1863.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22798"><label>(12c)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\5ca9e257-cd85-425e-90ed-50409e5c37c6.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22799"><label>(12d)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\2b1128cf-0da7-4126-8a5a-6ca0fcc8c4b6.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where L is given by (9). Equation (12d) is obtained from (3), using that<img src="11-1500243\e7f730a2-271d-419e-af39-d59577c5a7fe.jpg" />. Equation (12a) is obtained by substituting for <img src="11-1500243\f31b0a5d-c5ef-43f4-bbe7-33bb3d83e4d4.jpg" /> from (12d), <img src="11-1500243\0ca123d1-3819-4603-b3f6-639cf23f6da9.jpg" />from (6c) and <img src="11-1500243\b78a1747-d482-4adc-843d-7fdcb3367cc4.jpg" /> from (11) into (10), and using (8). Equation (12b) is the budget constraint (5). Equation (12c) is obtained by substituting for <img src="11-1500243\21e11fb4-6d41-4a01-beb3-7cb2b4dad8ce.jpg" /> from (6c) and <img src="11-1500243\c9163755-bee1-4295-bbc6-f0e75da974b7.jpg" /> from (11) into<img src="11-1500243\7616c044-f7b0-4b0f-84e8-0fee34cd3749.jpg" />.</p><p>Now, we focus on an interior steady state. An overline will denote the steady-state value of a variable. The following proposition states the existence and uniqueness of a steady state.</p><p>Proposition 1. The economy has a unique steady state</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22800"><label>(13a)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\60d3c5ea-b48b-46ea-98bc-feeb5e78279c.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22801"><label>(13b)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\418f5bad-343c-462c-8727-c82c878f7368.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22802"><label>(13c)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\d6405020-f6a4-4d5e-a478-f513d596560c.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>and the steady-state value of the work time is</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22803"><label>(13d)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\d712774c-e670-4d0b-80eb-39bb14aed3c9.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Proof. Let<img src="11-1500243\b86e2f20-879c-4fcf-a769-567c4e14a0ae.jpg" />. Imposing<img src="11-1500243\7e00a325-3f74-4bad-b5c7-a8aede957d16.jpg" />, the steady state of (12) is the solution of the system</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22804"><label>(14)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\0b83bfbc-7b38-4e65-b1a7-0a8b8ef1cce5.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22805"><label>(15)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\3fcdb381-ef94-4d7a-85bd-97848120d39b.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22806"><label>(16)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\e81fa28e-52b3-4149-b36b-4da909b4f480.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22807"><label>(17)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\ed193475-0cbe-4331-8f63-d8a885caac74.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equation (17) entails that<img src="11-1500243\0e092bc5-ff6c-426c-81a3-3c289de87efe.jpg" />, which substituted into (14) yields</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22808"><label>(18)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\a652338f-4815-4c77-a046-93dd5932f33e.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>From (16) and (18), we obtain (13c). Now, from (18) we get</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22809"><label>(19)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\7ef64406-fb04-4105-aa24-a6f48c58496f.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>From (19) and<img src="11-1500243\81e04b2c-151d-4ff1-8044-2d4e2ccc5789.jpg" />, we have that<img src="11-1500243\a4b59c54-9527-4a40-94c6-79928200175e.jpg" />, which substituted into (15) yields (13b). Substituting <img src="11-1500243\4b43f385-dd75-44ce-9e44-723b2b4f689e.jpg" /> and <img src="11-1500243\850d4cb9-eb1e-4726-8a57-9d8759afba49.jpg" /> for (13b) into (9) we get (13d). Substituting <img src="11-1500243\12470651-7bd7-4cf0-91a1-2c274b477d55.jpg" /> for (13d) into<img src="11-1500243\62f9aec7-b8c6-414b-b2d1-7dba0977b79e.jpg" />, using (19), we get (13a) after simplifycation. The transversality condition (6e) can be easily shown to be equivalent to<img src="11-1500243\fe17d5e9-4d90-4f75-9dce-032b9c033e60.jpg" />. ■</p><p>The following Lemma will be used to study the stability of the steady state.</p><p>Lemma 1. Let the characteristic equation for a matrix B of order 4 &#180; 4 be</p><p><img src="11-1500243\a988109b-d94e-4e45-8a67-e0c449784767.jpg" />.</p><p>If<img src="11-1500243\c063ed8b-e6ec-4ef2-b04d-54bda95a9389.jpg" />, the matrix B features two (stable) roots with negative real parts.</p><p>Proof. The number of roots of the characteristic equation with negative real parts (stable roots) is equal to the number of roots of the polynomial <img src="11-1500243\b858736f-a137-453a-8e40-276c7b68919b.jpg" /> with positive real parts. Using the Routh-Hurwitz theorem (e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref16">16</xref>]), the number of stable roots is then equal to the number of variations of sign in the scheme</p><p><img src="11-1500243\126b7fc9-3018-4049-b769-a88ec5920a61.jpg" /></p><p>where <img src="11-1500243\85e692ce-03da-43ae-9001-37e4abee4c0b.jpg" /> and <img src="11-1500243\315249a6-fd17-4bf4-9d7c-3d722ba0d603.jpg" />. If <img src="11-1500243\bfc10948-8d78-4169-bc30-f2628631badd.jpg" /> then<img src="11-1500243\afb7d023-6f8c-48bd-8d7c-4b903b884a2c.jpg" />, and so, we have the scheme</p><p><img src="11-1500243\dcb18685-96fc-4c30-b5be-7a320b0edd75.jpg" /></p><p>Hence, there are two variations in sign. If <img src="11-1500243\f547599a-c627-46f8-8a75-2d4ecd9ff100.jpg" /> we have the configuration</p><p><img src="11-1500243\3c5c6065-0b01-4312-9d46-e8d3502be471.jpg" /></p><p>where a question mark represents an unknown sign, which could be even zero. Irrespective of the unknown sign (even if it is zero), there are two variations in sign. If<img src="11-1500243\6d564fc5-1b43-4d15-9488-2ca580322910.jpg" />, we substitute <img src="11-1500243\63111a22-f152-4552-8dbe-cdf0ce3d7a3d.jpg" /> for a positive constant e than tends to zero, and we obtain the following configuration</p><p><img src="11-1500243\af130aa5-9eec-41ca-9be1-660386e1d7fc.jpg" /></p><p>Since the sign of the entry to the left of the zero is different to that to the right of it, this indicates a change of sign, and so, there are two variations in sign. Hence, in any case there are two variations in sign, and so, B has two (stable) roots with negative real parts. ■</p><p>The following proposition establishes the saddle-path stability of the steady state.</p><p>Proposition 2. The steady state of the economy described by (13a)-(13c) is locally saddle-path stable.</p><p>Proof. Linearizing (12) around its steady state (13) we obtain</p><disp-formula id="scirp.25804-formula22810"><label>(20)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="11-1500243\54dcc904-4931-460f-bc10-0030b32cfda9.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><p><img src="11-1500243\fae10e81-b53b-47dc-ba39-3d1e225ededb.jpg" /></p><p>with<img src="11-1500243\9a75a683-9853-401e-a27f-583a3c203229.jpg" />, <img src="11-1500243\f89d85ed-443a-4930-972a-7c4f1f6040ca.jpg" />, and <img src="11-1500243\fac5cf68-1546-41b4-8ff6-65a02b13c6f1.jpg" />.</p><p>The characteristic equation for the matrix B is</p><p><img src="11-1500243\76c5e857-70e4-46e8-99cf-d746e572b3f0.jpg" /></p><p>where p<sub>3</sub> is the opposite of the trace of B,<img src="11-1500243\3a5dd4f6-b1f2-466e-be82-63110d0ab74e.jpg" />; p<sub>2</sub> is the sum of all the leading principal minors of order 2 of B; p<sub>1</sub> is the opposite of the sum of all the leading principal minors of order 3 of B, and p<sub>0</sub> is the determinant of B,<img src="11-1500243\c63fd131-4b07-4a9d-8b7a-d0b78fa8905a.jpg" />. It can be proved by direct computation that</p><p><img src="11-1500243\1a32975f-66e7-4689-b029-4934610e6fa3.jpg" /></p><p>Using Lemma 1, the matrix B has two stable roots. Since the system (12) features two predetermined variables, K and H, the number of stable roots is equal to the number of predetermined variables. Hence, the steady state <img src="11-1500243\b658dfdb-4d48-42f9-b183-346a65c0b82d.jpg" /> is locally saddle-path stable. ■</p><p>In accordance with the results reported in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref9">9</xref>] for a similar model with inelastic labor supply, numerical experimentation shows that the stable roots may also be real or complex when labor supply is elastically supplied. For example, the parameterization B = 1, s = 0.4, b = 0.04, n = 0.01, d = 0.04, e = 1.5, g = 0.3, r = 0.1, v = 4, h = 0.8, f = 1 yields the (complex) stable roots –0.08597 &#177; 0.01709i. If the speed of adjustment is reduced from r = 0.1 to r = 0.02, the (real) stable roots are –0.08942 and –0.01812. Hence, the equilibrium path could converge to the steady state through damped oscillations.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusions</title><p>This paper has analyzed the equilibrium dynamics of the neoclassical growth model with multiplicative habits and elastic labor supply. The specification of habit formation comprises the particular cases of internal and external habits. Uniqueness and saddle-path stability of the steady state is proved analytically. The stability analysis shows that the transitional dynamics of the model is represented by a two-dimensional stable saddle-path. This provides a much richer dynamics for the transition paths relative to the standard neoclassical growth model without habits (e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref17">17</xref>]) or the AK endogenous growth model with habit formation (e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref6">6</xref>]) that feature a single stable root and a one-dimensional stable saddle-path.</p><p>In this paper we have assumed that leisure and adjusted consumption are additively separable in utility, and that habits enter utility in a multiplicative way. Interesting extensions would be to analyze whether the saddle-point stability result is robust with respect to a non-separable specification of adjusted-consumption and leisure, and with respect to habits entering utility in an subtractive way (e.g., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.25804-ref2">2</xref>]) or even in a more general way (e.g., [18,19]). These issues will be the subject of future research.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Acknowledgements</title><p>The author wishes to thank an anonymous referee for useful comments. Financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through Grant ECO2011- 25490 is gratefully acknowledged.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>REFERENCES</title></sec><sec id="s7"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.25804-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">A. Abel, “Asset Prices under Habit Formation and Catching up with the Joneses,” American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 2, 1990, pp. 38-42.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">G. M. Constantinides, “Habit Formation: A Resolution of the Equity Premium Puzzle,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 3, 1990, pp. 519-543. 
doi:10.1086/261693</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">C. D. Carroll, J. Overland and D. N. Weil, “Saving, Growth and Habit Formation,” American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, 2000, pp. 341-355. doi:10.1257/aer.90.3.341</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">J. C. Fuhrer, “Habit Formation in Consumption and Its Implications for Monetary Policy Models,” American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, 2000, pp. 367-390. 
doi:10.1257/aer.90.3.367</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">J. Campbell and J. Cochrane, “By Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, No. 2, 1999, pp. 205-251. doi:10.1086/250059</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">C. D. Carroll, J. Overland and D. N. Weil, “Comparison Utility in a Growth Model,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1997, pp. 339-367. 
doi:10.1023/A:1009740920294</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. A. Gómez, “Optimal Consumption Taxation in a Model of Endogenous Growth with External Habit Formation,” Economics Letters, Vol. 93, No. 3, 2006, pp. 427-435. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.06.017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">J. Alonso-Carrera, J. Caballe and X. Raurich, “Growth, Habit Formation, and Catching-Up with the Joneses,” European Economic Review, Vol. 49, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1665-1691. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.03.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">F. Alvarez-Cuadrado, G. Monteiro and S. J. Turnovsky, “Habit Formation, Catching-Up with the Joneses, and Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2004, pp. 47-80. 
doi:10.1023/B:JOEG.0000023016.26449.eb</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. A. Gómez, “Equilibrium Efficiency in the Ramsey Model with Habit Formation,” Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics &amp; Econometrics, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2007, p. 2.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">S. J. Turnovsky and G. Monteiro, “Consumption Externalities, Production Externalities, and Efficient Capital Accumulation under Time Non-Separable Preferences,” European Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2007, pp. 479-504. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2005.12.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">L. G. Arnold, “The Dynamics of the Jones R &amp; D Growth Model,” Review of Economic Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 143-152. doi:10.1016/j.red.2005.09.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">D. Mondal, “Stability Analysis of the Grossman-Helpman Model of Endogenous Product Cycles,” Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2008, pp. 1302-1322. 
doi:10.1016/j.jmacro.2007.08.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R. Hiraguchi, “Some Foundations for Multiplicative Habits Models,” Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2008, pp. 873-884. doi:10.1016/j.jmacro.2007.07.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R. Hiraguchi, “A Two Sector Endogenous Growth Model with Habit Formation,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2011, pp. 430-441. 
doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2010.08.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">F. R. Gantmacher, “The Theory of Matrices,” Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1959.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R. J. Barro and X. Sala-i-Martin, “Economic Growth,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">W. F. Liu and S. J. Turnovsky, “Consumption Externalities, Production Externalities, and Long-Run Macroeconomic Efficiency,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 89, No. 5-6, 2005, pp. 1097-1129. 
doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.12.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.25804-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. A. Gómez, “Endogenous Growth, Habit Formation and Convergence Speed,” The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. 
doi:10.2202/1935-1690.1971</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>