Is Consumption Too Smooth?
AbstractFor thirty years, it has been accepted that consumption is smooth because permanent income is smoother than measured income. This paper considers the evidence for the contrary position, that permanent income is in fact less smooth than measured income, so that the smoothness of consumption cannot be straightforwardly explained by permanent income theory. Quarterly first differences of labor income in the United States are well described by an AR(1) with a positive autoregressive parameter. Innovations to such a process are "more than permanent;" there is no deterministic trend to which the series must eventually return, and good or bad fortune in one period can be expected to be at least partially repeated in the next. Changes to permanent income should therefore be greater than the innovations to measured income, and changes in consumption should be more variable than innovations to measured income. In fact, changes in consumption are much less variable than are income innovations. We consider two possible explanations for this paradox, first, that innovations to labor income are in reality much less persistent than appears from an AR(l), and second, that consumers have more information than do econometricians, so that only a fraction of the estimated innovations are actually unexpected by consumers. The univariate time series results are less than decisive, but the balance of the evidence, whether from fitting ARMA models or from examining the spectral density, is more favorable to the view that innovations are persistent than to the opposite view, that there is slow reversion to trend. The information question is taken up within a bivariate model of income and savings that can accommodate the feedback from saving to income that is predicted by the permanent income theory if consumers have superior information. Nevertheless, our results are the same; changes in consumption are typically smaller than those warranted by the change in permanent income. We show that our finding of "excess smoothness" is consistent with the earlier findings of "excess sensitivity" of consumption to income. Our analysis is conducted within a "logarithmic" version of the permanent income hypothesis, a formulation that recognizes that rates of growth of income and saving ratios have greater claim to stationarity than do changes in income and saving flows.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 2134.
Date of creation: Nov 1989
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Marvin Goodfriend, 1991.
91-06, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
- Lawrence J. Christiano, 1987. "Why is consumption less volatile than income?," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Fall, pages 2-20.
- Monica Ospina, 2010. "CCT programs for consumption insurance: evidence from Colombia," DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO CIEF 010612, UNIVERSIDAD EAFIT.
- Foued Chihi & Michel Normandin, 2008. "External and Budget Deficits in Developing Countries," Cahiers de recherche 0819, CIRPEE.
- Päivi Kankaanranta, 2006. "Consumption Over the Life Cycle: A Selected Literature Review," Discussion Papers 7, Aboa Centre for Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.