Consumption Theories and Hypotheses
Keynes's Conjectures
Keynes proposed three conjectures about consumption:
Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC): 0 < MPC < 1. This means that for every dollar increase in income, consumption increases by less than one dollar.
Average Propensity to Consume (APC): The APC falls as income rises. APC is defined as APC = \frac{C}{Y}, where C is consumption and Y is income.
Income as the Main Determinant: Income is the primary factor determining consumption levels.
The Keynesian Consumption Function
The consumption function is represented as C = \overline{C} + MPC \cdot Y, where \overline{C} is autonomous consumption (consumption independent of income).
MPC is the slope of the function.
As income rises, consumers save a bigger fraction of their income, causing APC to fall.
Early Empirical Successes
Early studies showed that households with higher incomes consume more and save more.
MPC is greater than 0 and less than 1.
Higher-income households save a larger fraction of their income, leading to a decreasing APC as income increases.
There is a strong correlation between income and consumption, suggesting that income is a main determinant of consumption.
Problems with the Keynesian Consumption Function
Economists predicted that consumption would grow more slowly than income over time based on the Keynesian consumption function. This prediction turned out to be inaccurate.
In reality, the APC did not fall as incomes grew, and consumption grew at the same rate as income.
Simon Kuznets demonstrated that C/Y (APC) was very stable in long time series data.
The Consumption Puzzle
The consumption puzzle arises from the difference between the consumption function derived from cross-sectional household data (falling APC) and long time series data (constant APC).
Irving Fisher and Intertemporal Choice
Fisher's model provides the basis for much subsequent work on consumption.
It assumes that consumers are forward-looking and make consumption choices for the present and future to maximize lifetime satisfaction.
Consumer choices are subject to an intertemporal budget constraint, which measures the total resources available for present and future consumption.
The Basic Two-Period Model
The model considers two periods: the present (Period 1) and the future (Period 2).
Notation:
Y1, Y2 = income in period 1 and period 2, respectively.
C1, C2 = consumption in period 1 and period 2, respectively.
S = Y1 - C1 = saving in period 1 (S < 0 if the consumer borrows in period 1).
Deriving the Intertemporal Budget Constraint
Period 2 budget constraint: C2 = Y2 + (1 + r)S = Y2 + (1 + r)(Y1 - C_1)
Rearranging terms: (1 + r)C1 + C2 = Y2 + (1 + r)Y1
Divide through by (1 + r) to get: C1 + \frac{C2}{1 + r} = Y1 + \frac{Y2}{1 + r}
The Intertemporal Budget Constraint
C1 + \frac{C2}{1 + r} = Y1 + \frac{Y2}{1 + r}
The left side represents the present value of lifetime consumption.
The right side represents the present value of lifetime income.
The budget constraint shows all combinations of C1 and C2 that just exhaust the consumer's resources.
The slope of the budget line equals -(1 + r).
Consumer Preferences
An indifference curve shows all combinations of C1 and C2 that make the consumer equally happy.
Higher indifference curves represent higher levels of happiness.
Marginal Rate of Substitution (MRS):
The amount of C2 the consumer would be willing to substitute for one unit of C1.
The slope of an indifference curve at any point equals the MRS at that point.
Optimization
The optimal (C1, C2) is where the budget line just touches the highest indifference curve.
At the optimal point, MRS = 1 + r.
How Consumption Responds to Changes in Income
An increase in Y1 or Y2 shifts the budget line outward.
If both C1 and C2 are normal goods, both increase, regardless of whether the income increase occurs in period 1 or period 2.
Keynes vs. Fisher
Keynes:
Current consumption depends only on current income.
Fisher:
Current consumption depends only on the present value of lifetime income.
The timing of income is irrelevant because the consumer can borrow or lend between periods.
How Consumption Responds to Changes in Interest Rate (r)
An increase in r pivots the budget line around the point (Y1, Y2).
Income Effect: If the consumer is a saver, the rise in r makes them better off, which tends to increase consumption in both periods.
Substitution Effect: The rise in r increases the opportunity cost of current consumption, which tends to reduce C1 and increase C2.
Both effects lead to an increase in C_2.
Whether C_1 rises or falls depends on the relative size of the income & substitution effects.
Constraints on Borrowing
In Fisher's theory, the timing of income is irrelevant, as consumers can borrow and lend across periods.
Borrowing Constraints (Liquidity Constraints): If a consumer faces borrowing constraints, they may not be able to increase current consumption.
The borrowing constraint can take the form: C1 = Y1
The budget line with a borrowing constraint means consumption in period 1 cannot exceed income in period 1.
Consumer Optimization:
If the borrowing constraint is not binding, the consumer's optimal C1 is less than Y1.
If the borrowing constraint is binding, the best the consumer can do is to consume all of their current income.
The Life-Cycle Hypothesis (LCH)
Developed by Franco Modigliani.
Fisher's model states that consumption depends on lifetime income, and people try to achieve smooth consumption.
The LCH states that income varies systematically over the phases of the consumer's life cycle, and saving allows the consumer to achieve smooth consumption.
The Basic Model of LCH
Variables:
W = initial wealth
Y = annual income until retirement (assumed constant)
R = number of years until retirement
T = lifetime in years
Assumptions:
Zero real interest rate (for simplicity)
Consumption-smoothing is optimal
Lifetime resources = W + RY
Achieving Smooth Consumption in LCH
To achieve smooth consumption, the consumer divides their resources equally over time: C = \frac{W + RY}{T}, or C = \alpha W + \beta Y
\alpha = \frac{1}{T} is the marginal propensity to consume out of wealth
\beta = \frac{R}{T} is the marginal propensity to consume out of income
Implications of the Life-Cycle Hypothesis
The LCH can solve the consumption puzzle:
The life-cycle consumption function implies APC = \frac{C}{Y} = \alpha \frac{W}{Y} + \beta
Across households, income varies more than wealth, so high-income households should have a lower APC than low-income households.
Over time, aggregate wealth and income grow together, causing APC to remain stable.
The LCH implies that saving varies systematically over a person's lifetime.
The Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH)
Developed by Milton Friedman.
Y = Y^P + Y^T
Y = current income
Y^P = permanent income (average income, which people expect to persist into the future)
Y^T = transitory income (temporary deviations from average income)
Consumption and the PIH
Consumers use saving & borrowing to smooth consumption in response to transitory changes in income.
The PIH consumption function: C = \alpha Y^P, where \alpha is the fraction of permanent income that people consume per year.
Solving the Consumption Puzzle with PIH
The PIH implies APC = \frac{C}{Y} = \alpha \frac{Y^P}{Y}
If high-income households have higher transitory income than low-income households, APC is lower in high-income households.
Over the long run, income variation is primarily due to variation in permanent income, which implies a stable APC.
PIH vs. LCH
Both theories suggest that people try to smooth their consumption in the face of changing current income.
LCH: Current income changes systematically as people move through their life cycle.
PIH: Current income is subject to random, transitory fluctuations.
Both can explain the consumption puzzle.
The Random-Walk Hypothesis
Developed by Robert Hall.
Based on Fisher's model & PIH, in which forward-looking consumers base consumption on expected future income.
Hall adds the assumption of rational expectations, that people use all available information to forecast future variables like income.
Implications of the Random-Walk Hypothesis
If PIH is correct and consumers have rational expectations, then consumption should follow a random walk: changes in consumption should be unpredictable.
Anticipated changes in income or wealth have already been factored into expected permanent income and will not change consumption.
Only unanticipated changes in income or wealth that alter expected permanent income will change consumption.
Policy changes will affect consumption only if they are unanticipated.
The Psychology of Instant Gratification
Theories from Fisher to Hall assume that consumers are rational and act to maximize lifetime utility.
Recent studies by David Laibson and others consider the psychology of consumers.
Consumers consider themselves to be imperfect decision-makers and recognize the "pull of instant gratification," which explains why people don't save as much as they rationally know they should.
Chapter Summary
Keynesian consumption theory:
MPC is between 0 and 1.
APC falls as income rises.
Current income is the main determinant of current consumption.
Fisher's theory of intertemporal choice:
Consumers choose current & future consumption to maximize lifetime satisfaction subject to an intertemporal budget constraint.
Current consumption depends on lifetime income, not current income, provided consumers can borrow & save.
Modigliani's life-cycle hypothesis:
Income varies systematically over a lifetime.
Consumers use saving & borrowing to smooth consumption.
Consumption depends on income & wealth.
Friedman's permanent-income hypothesis:
Consumption depends mainly on permanent income.
Consumers use saving & borrowing to smooth consumption in the face of transitory fluctuations in income.
Hall's random-walk hypothesis:
Combines PIH with rational expectations.
Changes in consumption are unpredictable and occur only in response to unanticipated changes in expected permanent income.
Laibson and the pull of instant gratification:
The desire for instant gratification causes people to save less than they rationally know they should.