I implement and compare five solution methods for a benchmark heterogeneous firms model with lumpy capital adjustment and aggregate uncertainty. The Krusell–Smith algorithm performs best within a group of methods using projection in the aggregate states. Another technique, Parameterization plus Perturbation, is much faster and performs best within a group of methods using perturbation in aggregates. However, projection and perturbation have nonoverlapping strengths and weaknesses. I highlight the resulting trade‐offs with several model extensions. I recommend that researchers apply projection methods to cases with large shocks or nonlinear dynamics, while cases with explicitly distributional channels at work favor perturbation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen Terry (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: