Permanent Income, Current Income, and Consumption: Evidence From Two Panel Data Sets

In this paper, the author estimates Euler equations, i.e., the first order conditions of the consumers' maximization problem, using data from two data sets. Consumption data are taken from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Income data are taken from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Since the data for the estimation come from two samples, the author uses a generalization of the instrumental variables estimator: two-sample instrumental variables estimator. She finds evidence that consumption is excessively sensitive to predictable income growth. The estimates of the coefficient of excess sensitivity for three consumption measures range from 0.2 to 0.5.

[1]  Joseph G. Altonji,et al.  Testing the Response of Consumption to Income Changes with (Noisy) Paneldata , 1986 .

[2]  S. Zeldes.  Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An Empirical Investigation , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  Costas Meghir,et al.  Female labour supply and on-the-job search: an empirical model estimated using complementary data sets , 1992 .

[4]  Frederic S. Mishkin,et al.  The Sensitivity of Consumption to Transitory Income: Estimates from Panel Data on Households , 1980 .

[5]  Gary Chamberlain,et al.  Chapter 22 Panel data , 1984 .

[6]  David A. Jaeger,et al.  Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation when the Correlation between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable is Weak , 1995 .

[7]  N. Gregory Mankiw,et al.  Hall's consumption hypothesis and durable goods , 1982 .

[8]  N. Mankiw,et al.  Permanent Income, Current Income, and Consumption , 1987 .

[9]  Orazio Attanasio,et al.  Is Consumption Growth Consistent with Intertemporal Optimization? Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Robert A. Miller,et al.  Human capital, aggregate shocks and panel data estimation , 1991 .

[11]  John Shea,et al.  Union contracts and the life-cycle/permanent-income hypothesis , 1995 .

[12]  M. Lage.  Sensitivity of tests of the PIH to alternative consumption proxies , 1991 .

[13]  J. Hausman,et al.  Individual retirement and savings behavior , 1984 .

[14]  Richard Startz,et al.  Some Further Results on the Exact Small Sample Properties of the Instrumental Variable Estimator , 1988 .

[15]  J. Angrist,et al.  The Effect of Age at School Entry on Educational Attainment: An Application of Instrumental Variables with Moments from Two Samples , 1990 .

[16]  C. Nelson,et al.  The Distribution of the Instrumental Variables Estimator and its T-Ratiowhen the Instrument is a Poor One , 1988 .

[17]  C. Carroll.  How does Future Income Affect Current Consumption , 1994 .

[18]  David E. Runkle,et al.  Liquidity constraints and the permanent-income hypothesis: Evidence from panel data , 1991 .

[19]  R. Hall.  Stochastic Implications of the Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence , 1978, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  K. Shaw,et al.  Unanticipated Aggregate Disturbances and Tests of the Life-Cycle Consumption Model Using Panel Data , 1993 .

[21]  Marjorie Flavin,et al.  The Adjustment of Consumption to Changing Expectations About Future Income , 1981, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  C. Carroll,et al.  Consumption Growth Parallels Income Growth: Some New Evidence , 1989 .