1932

Abstract

What model features and calibration strategies yield a large average marginal propensity to consume (MPC) in heterogeneous agent models? Through a systematic investigation of models with different preferences, dimensions of ex-ante heterogeneity, income processes, and asset structures, we show that the most important factor is the share and type of hand-to-mouth households. One-asset models either feature a trade-off between a high average MPC and a realistic level of aggregate wealth or generate an excessively polarized wealth distribution that vastly understates the wealth held by households in the middle of the distribution. Two-asset models that include both liquid and illiquid assets can resolve this tension with a large enough gap between liquid and illiquid returns. We discuss how such return differential can be justified from the perspective of theory and data.

[Erratum, Closure]

An erratum has been published for this article:
Erratum: The Marginal Propensity to Consume in Heterogeneous Agent Models
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053444
2022-08-12
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/14/1/annurev-economics-080217-053444.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053444&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aguiar MA, Bils M, Boar C. 2020. Who are the hand-to-mouth? NBER Work. Pap. 26643
  2. Andersen AL, Jensen AS, Johannesen N, Kreiner CT, Leth-Petersen S, Sheridan A 2020. How do households respond to job loss? Lessons from multiple high-frequency data sets. CEBI Work. Pap. 12/20, Cent. Econ. Behav. Inequal., Univ. Copenhagen Copenhagen, Den:.
  3. Attanasio O, Kovacs A, Moran P. 2020. Temptation and commitment: understanding hand-to-mouth behavior. NBER Work. Pap. 27944
  4. Auclert A. 2019. Monetary policy and the redistribution channel. Am. Econ. Rev. 109:62333–67
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Auclert A, Rognlie M, Straub L. 2018. The intertemporal Keynesian cross NBER Work. Pap. 25020
  6. Aydin D. 2022. Consumption response to credit expansions: evidence from experimental assignment of 45,307 credit lines. Am. Econ. Rev. 112:11–40
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Benhabib J, Bisin A. 2018. Skewed wealth distributions: theory and empirics. J. Econ. Lit. 56:41261–91
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilbiie FO. 2020. The new Keynesian cross. J. Monet. Econ. 114:90–108
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blundell R, Pistaferri L, Preston I 2008. Consumption inequality and partial insurance. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:51887–921
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bunn P, Le Roux J, Reinold K, Surico P 2018. The consumption response to positive and negative income shocks. J. Monet. Econ. 96:1–15
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell JY, Mankiw NG. 1989. Consumption, income, and interest rates: reinterpreting the time series evidence. NBER Macroecon. Annu. 4:185–216
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carroll CD. 2001. A theory of the consumption function, with and without liquidity constraints. J. Econ. Perspect. 15:323–45
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carroll CD, Holm MB, Kimball MS. 2021. Liquidity constraints and precautionary saving. J. Econ. Theory 195:105276
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carroll CD, Kimball MS. 1996. On the concavity of the consumption function. Econometrica 64:4981–92
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Carroll CD, Kimball MS. 2001. Liquidity constraints and precautionary saving NBER Work. Pap. 8496
  16. Carroll CD, Otsuka M, Slacalek J. 2011. How large are housing and financial wealth effects? A new approach. J. Money Credit Bank 43:155–79
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carroll CD, Slacalek J, Tokuoka K, White MN. 2017. The distribution of wealth and the marginal propensity to consume. Quant. Econ. 8:3977–1020
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Commault J. 2022. Does consumption respond to transitory shocks? Reconciling natural experiments and semistructural methods. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 14:296–122
    [Google Scholar]
  19. De Nardi M, Fella G. 2017. Saving and wealth inequality. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 26:280–300
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Deaton A. 1991. Saving and liquidity constraints. Econometrica 59:51221–48
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Di Maggio M, Kermani A, Majlesi K. 2020. Stock market returns and consumption. J. Finance 75:63175–219
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Epstein LG, Zin SE. 1991. Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: an empirical analysis. J. Political Econ. 99:2263–86
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fagereng A, Holm MB, Natvik GJ. 2021. MPC heterogeneity and household balance sheets. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 13:41–54
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fuster A, Kaplan G, Zafar B. 2021. What would you do with $500? Spending responses to gains, losses, news, and loans. Rev. Econ. Stud. 88:41760–95
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ganong P, Jones D, Noel P, Greig F, Farrell D, Wheat C. 2020. Wealth, race, and consumption smoothing of typical income shocks NBER Work. Pap. 27552
  26. Gelman M. 2021. What drives heterogeneity in the marginal propensity to consume? Temporary shocks versus persistent characteristics. J. Monet. Econ. 117:521–42
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gelman M, Kariv S, Shapiro MD, Silverman D, Tadelis S. 2020. How individuals respond to a liquidity shock: evidence from the 2013 government shutdown. J. Public Econ. 189:103917
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Golosov M, Graber M, Mogstad M, Novgorodsky D. 2021. How Americans respond to idiosyncratic and exogenous changes in household wealth and unearned income NBER Work. Pap. 29000
  29. Gul F, Pesendorfer W. 2001. Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69:61403–35
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Havranek T, Sokolova A. 2020. Do consumers really follow a rule of thumb? Three thousand estimates from 144 studies say “probably not. .'' Rev. Econ. Dyn. 35:97–122
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Helpman E. 1981. Optimal spending and money holdings in the presence of liquidity constraints. Econometrica 49:61559–70
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jappelli T, Pistaferri L. 2010. The consumption response to income changes. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2:479–506
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jappelli T, Pistaferri L. 2014. Fiscal policy and MPC heterogeneity. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 6:4107–36
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Johnson DS, Parker JA, Souleles NS. 2006. Household expenditure and the income tax rebates of 2001. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:51589–610
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jordà Ò, Knoll K, Kuvshinov D, Schularick M, Taylor AM. 2019. The rate of return on everything, 1870–2015. Q. J. Econ. 134:31225–98
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaplan G, Moll B, Violante GL 2018. Monetary policy according to hank. Am. Econ. Rev. 108:3697–743
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaplan G, Violante GL. 2014. A model of the consumption response to fiscal stimulus payments. Econometrica 82:41199–239
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaplan G, Violante GL, Weidner J. 2014. The wealthy hand-to-mouth. Brook. Pap. Econ. Activ. Spring:77–138
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kekre R, Lenel M. 2021. Monetary policy, redistribution, and risk premia NBER Work. Pap. 28869
  40. Kimball MS. 1990. Precautionary saving and the marginal propensity to consume NBER Work. Pap. 8233
  41. Krueger D, Mitman K, Perri F 2016. Macroeconomics and household heterogeneity. Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 2A JB Taylor, H Uhlig 843–921 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Krusell P, Kuruşçu B, Smith AA Jr. 2002. Time orientation and asset prices. J. Monet. Econ. 49:1107–35
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Krusell P, Kuruşçu B, Smith AA Jr. 2010. Temptation and taxation. Econometrica 78:62063–84
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kueng L. 2018. Excess sensitivity of high-income consumers. Q. J. Econ. 133:41693–751
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Laibson D. 1997. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q. J. Econ. 112:2443–78
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Laibson D, Maxted P, Moll B. 2021. Present bias amplifies the household balance-sheet channels of macroeconomic policy NBER Work. Pap. 29094
  47. Lewis DJ, Melcangi D, Pilossoph L. 2019. Latent heterogeneity in the marginal propensity to consume Staff Rep. 902, Fed. Reserve Bank New York New York:
  48. Mian A, Rao K, Sufi A. 2013. Household balance sheets, consumption, and the economic slump. Q. J. Econ. 128:41687–726
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Misra K, Surico P. 2014. Consumption, income changes, and heterogeneity: evidence from two fiscal stimulus programs. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 6:484–106
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nakajima M. 2017. Assessing bankruptcy reform in a model with temptation and equilibrium default. J. Public Econ. 145:42–64
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Parker JA, Souleles NS. 2019. Reported effects versus revealed-preference estimates: evidence from the propensity to spend tax rebates. Am. Econ. Rev. Insights 1:3273–90
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Parker JA, Souleles NS, Johnson DS, McClelland R. 2013. Consumer spending and the economic stimulus payments of 2008. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:62530–53
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Patterson C. 2019. The matching multiplier and the amplification of recessions. Work. Pap., Northwest. Univ. Evanston, IL:
  54. Pavoni N, Yazici H. 2017. Optimal life-cycle capital taxation under self-control problems. Econ. J. 127:6021188–216
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Shapiro MD, Slemrod J. 2003. Consumer response to tax rebates. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:1381–96
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Shapiro MD, Slemrod J. 2009. Did the 2008 tax rebates stimulate spending?. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:2374–79
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Werning I. 2015. Incomplete markets and aggregate demand NBER Work. Pap. 21448
  58. Wolf C. 2020. The missing intercept: a demand equivalence approach. Tech. Rep., Mass. Inst. Technol. Cambridge:
  59. Zeldes SP. 1989. Consumption and liquidity constraints: an empirical investigation. J. Political Econ. 97:2305–46
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053444
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053444
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error