IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Mesurer les préférences individuelles pour le présent

Listed author(s):
  • Luc Arrondel

    (PSE - Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC))

  • André Masson

    (PSE - Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC))

  • Daniel Verger

    (INSEE - Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques - INSEE)

La théorie microéconomique fait dépendre les choix de l'épargnant sur le cycle de vie de son taux de dépréciation du futur, soit du taux d'actualisation subjectif à l'aide duquel il escompte ses satisfactions à venir. Plus ce taux est élevé et plus le niveau de l'épargne sera faible. Caractérisant l'horizon de vie de l'agent, cette préférence pour le présent doit être distinguée des paramètres qui gouvernent ses décisions sur d'autres échéances : son degré d'impatience à plus court terme, mais aussi son altruisme intergénérationnel. De même que le taux de dépréciation du futur permet de comparer un plaisir demain à un plaisir aujourd'hui, le degré d'altruisme indique le poids relatif accordé au bien-être de ses enfants - ou à celui des générations futures - par rapport au sien. Pour évaluer ces préférences individuelles, un questionnaire spécifique a été posé à un sous-échantillon de l'enquête Insee Patrimoine 1998. Afin d'éviter les difficultés rencontrées par les tentatives de mesure précédentes, il ne propose pas seulement les arbitrages habituels - entre des plaisirs supposés équivalents à différentes dates -, mais envisage aussi une batterie de questions plus simples et plus concrètes qui cherchent à mieux cerner ce que représente véritablement la préférence temporelle, en termes d'horizon décisionnel et de " projets de vie ". En balayant un grand nombre de domaines et de situations, on espère limiter les effets de contexte et mieux contrôler les autres facteurs intervenant dans les choix intertemporels : taux d'intérêt, attitude à l'égard du risque face à un futur forcément incertain, contraintes de liquidité, etc. Le taux de dépréciation du futur, l'impatience, et les degrés d'altruisme ' familial et non familial ' sont alors évalués par des scores, mesures ordinales qui synthétisent les réponses apportées par l'enquêté à l'ensemble des questions attribuées à chaque préférence.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by HAL in its series Post-Print with number halshs-00754087.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: May 2005
Publication status: Published in Economie et Statistique, INSEE, 2005, pp.87-128
Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00754087
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal-pjse.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00754087
Contact details of provider: Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Esther Duflo, 2003. "Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intrahousehold Allocation in South Africa," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 17(1), pages 1-25, June.
  2. James Andreoni & Eleanor Brown & Isaac Rischall, 2003. "Charitable Giving by Married Couples Who Decides and Why Does it Matter?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 38(1).
  3. Duncan Thomas, 1990. "Intra-Household Resource Allocation: An Inferential Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 635-664.
  4. Gary S. Becker & Casey B. Mulligan, 1997. "The Endogenous Determination of Time Preference," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 729-758.
  5. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
  6. Becker, Gary S & Murphy, Kevin M, 1988. "A Theory of Rational Addiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 675-700, August.
  7. Bourguignon, Francois & Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1992. "Collective models of household behavior : An introduction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 355-364, April.
  8. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
  9. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
  10. Lawrance, Emily C, 1991. "Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference: Evidence from Panel Data," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(1), pages 54-77, February.
  11. Akerlof, George A, 1991. "Procrastination and Obedience," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 1-19, May.
  12. Ainslie, George, 1991. "Derivation of "Rational" Economic Behavior from Hyperbolic Discount Curves," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 334-340, May.
  13. Raghabendra Chattopadhyay & Esther Duflo, 2004. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1409-1443, 09.
  14. David I. Laibson, 1996. "Hyperbolic Discount Functions, Undersaving, and Savings Policy," NBER Working Papers 5635, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
  16. Shelly Lundberg & Robert A. Pollak, 1996. "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 139-158, Fall.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00754087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.