Wagenknecht The Limits of Choice

Saving Decisions and Basic Needs in Developed Countries
1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-3-593-42111-7
Verlag: Campus Verlag Digital
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 327 Seiten

Wann und warum sparen private Haushalte? Sahra Wagenknecht untersucht in ihrer Dissertation den Zusammenhang von Sparentscheidungen und Grundbedürfnissen in Deutschland und den USA von den 1950er-Jahren bis heute. Ihre zentrale Hypothese lautet, dass der Einkommensanteil der Ausgaben zur Befriedigung von Grundbedürfnissen die entscheidende Erklärungsvariable des individuellen Sparverhaltens darstellt. In Abgrenzung zur Lebenszyklus- bzw. Permanenten Einkommenshypothese (LCPIH) kann Wagenknecht zeigen, dass die individuelle Sparquote entscheidend vom langfristigen Einkommen abhängt. Die Arbeit weist für einen Zeitraum von über 50 Jahren nach, dass sich auch auf volkswirtschaftlicher Ebene die Veränderung der privaten Sparquote durch den 'necessity share' erklären lässt. Das vorgelegte Modell liefert zudem eine Erklärung, weshalb die private Sparquote bei steigender Einkommensungleichheit in Volkswirtschaften mit dereguliertem Kreditmarkt sinkt, während sie bei restriktiven Kreditmärkten steigt.

Sahra Wagenknecht ist promovierte Volkswirtin, Publizistin und Politikerin, seit Oktober 2015 Vorsitzende der Linksfraktion im Deutschen Bundestag. Von 2010 bis 2014 war sie Stellvertretende Parteivorsitzende, von 2004 bis 2009 Abgeordnete im Europäischen Parlament.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Wagenknecht, Sahra

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Contents;6
2;List of Figures;12
3;List of Variables and Abbreviations;14
4;Introduction;20
5;Chapter 1. Stylised Facts of Saving;32
5.1;Paragraph 1.1 Data Sets and Statistical Issues;34
5.1.1;1.1.1 Various Saving Aggregates and Their Relationship;34
5.1.2;1.1.2 Macroeconomic Data Sources for the U.S. and Germany;35
5.1.3;1.1.3 Measurement Problems—Saving Offshore or Saving Out of Realised Capital Gains;37
5.1.4;1.1.4 Statistical Revisions;38
5.1.5;1.1.5 Microeconomic Data Sources for the U.S. and Germany;39
5.2;Paragraph 1.2 The Historic Path of Saving;41
5.2.1;1.2.1 General Trends in the OECD;41
5.2.2;1.2.2 Saving in the U.S. and its Various Components;41
5.2.3;1.2.3 Saving in Germany and its Various Components;45
5.3;Paragraph 1.3 Stylised Facts at the Macroeconomic Level;48
5.3.1;1.3.1 Real Income;48
5.3.2;1.3.2 Growth;50
5.3.3;1.3.3 Real Interest Rates;52
5.3.4;1.3.4 Inflation;53
5.3.5;1.3.5 Unemployment and Social Security Standards;55
5.3.6;1.3.6 Demographics;56
5.3.7;1.3.7 Inequality;56
5.3.8;1.3.8 Institutional Environment;59
5.3.9;1.3.9 Persistency;60
5.4;Paragraph 1.4 Stylised Facts at the Microeconomic Level;61
5.4.1;1.4.1 Macroeconomic Facts and Microeconomic Distributions;61
5.4.2;1.4.2 Saving Rates in Cross-Section;62
5.4.3;1.4.3 Current Income, Real and Relative;65
5.4.4;1.4.4 Permanent Income;73
5.4.5;1.4.5 The Distribution of Financial Wealth;75
5.4.6;1.4.6 Growth, Income Fluctuations and the Role of Expectations;80
5.4.7;1.4.7 Uncertainty and Precautionary Saving;84
5.4.8;1.4.8 Life-Cycle Patterns of Saving;86
5.4.9;1.4.9 Saving Motives;88
5.5;Paragraph 1.5 Summary: Stylised Facts of Saving;90
6;Chapter 2. Do Standard Models of Saving Match the Facts?;92
6.1;Paragraph 2.1 The Standard LCPIH;94
6.1.1;2.1.1 Basic Ideas of the Standard Approach;94
6.1.2;2.1.2 The Modigliani-Diagram;95
6.1.3;2.1.3 The Perfect Foresight Model in Discrete Time;98
6.1.4;2.1.4 The Perfect Foresight Model in Continuous Time;102
6.1.5;2.1.5 The Certainty Equivalent Model;105
6.2;Paragraph 2.2 The Empirical Failure of the Standard Models;109
6.2.1;2.2.1 Excess Sensitivity and Excess Smoothness—Ambiguous Results;109
6.2.2;2.2.2 MPC and Income Growth—Wrong Predictions;110
6.2.3;2.2.3 Incapability to Explain Saving Rate Differentials;111
6.3;Paragraph 2.3 Refinements: Allowing for Precautionary Saving, Liquidity Constraints and Habit Formation;113
6.3.1;2.3.1 Convex Marginal Utility and the Precautionary Motive;113
6.3.2;2.3.2 The Technique of Stochastic Dynamic Programming;114
6.3.3;2.3.3 The Buffer-Stock Model;117
6.3.4;2.3.4 Liquidity Constrained Consumers;121
6.3.5;2.3.5 Models Including Habit Formation;122
6.4;Paragraph 2.4 Do the Elaborated Models Perform Better?;126
6.4.1;2.4.1 Gain in Realism at the Cost of Predictive Power;126
6.4.2;2.4.2 Remaining Deficiencies;127
6.5;Paragraph 2.5 The Optimal Consumption Path—General Remarks;129
6.5.1;2.5.1 Hidden Assumptions and Fundamental Flaws;129
6.5.2;2.5.2 Arguments of the Utility Function—Wealth as an End in Itself;130
6.5.3;2.5.3 A Realistic Time-Horizon;132
6.5.4;2.5.4 The Representative Consumer;133
6.5.5;2.5.5 Per-period Consumption as a Single Entity;139
6.5.6;2.5.6 The Elasticity of Intertemporal Substitution;142
6.5.7;2.5.7 The Optimising Procedure—Benefits and Costs;146
7;Chapter 3. A New Approach to Saving Behaviour;150
7.1;Paragraph 3.1 Basic Needs and Saving;152
7.1.1;3.1.1 The Relative-Income Hypothesis;152
7.1.2;3.1.2 Subsistence Consumption in Developing Countries;153
7.1.3;3.1.3 Necessities in Developed Countries;157
7.2;Paragraph 3.2 Basic Needs in Standard Models;160
7.2.1;3.2.1 Introducing Good-specific Subsistence Points into a Standard Dixit-Stiglitz framework;160
7.2.2;3.2.2 Intertemporal Optimisation with Moving Subsistence Consumption;172
7.3;Paragraph 3.3 Modelling Saving Decisions by a Simple Rule of Thumb;179
7.3.1;3.3.1 The Necessity Share in Outlay and in Income;181
7.3.2;3.3.2 Determinants of Saving under the Proposed Rule of Thumb;182
7.3.3;3.3.3 The Aggregated Saving Rate under the Given Rule of Thumb;185
7.3.4;3.3.4 Factors Influencing the Propensity to Save and to Dissave;192
7.3.5;3.3.5 Summary: Model Predictions;193
8;Chapter 4. The Patterns of Consumption Shares;196
8.1;Paragraph 4.1 How to Identify Basic Needs?;198
8.1.1;4.1.1 Two Approaches to the Historic Path of the Necessity Share;198
8.1.2;4.1.2 Basic Expenditure Groups versus Luxury Spending;201
8.2;Paragraph 4.2 Consumption Patterns at the Macroeconomic Level;204
8.2.1;4.2.1 Consumption Shares and Sectoral Prices in Germany;204
8.2.2;4.2.2 Consumption Shares and Sectoral Prices in the U.S.;207
8.3;Paragraph 4.3 Consumption Patterns at the Microeconomic Level;211
8.3.1;4.3.1 Methodological Notes;211
8.3.2;4.3.2 Food;212
8.3.3;4.3.3 Shelter;214
8.3.4;4.3.4 Clothing;215
8.3.5;4.3.5 Transportation;216
8.3.6;4.3.6 Communication;218
8.3.7;4.3.7 Furniture and Household Devices;218
8.3.8;4.3.8 Health Care;219
8.3.9;4.3.9 Entertainment and Recreation;220
8.3.10;4.3.10 Education;220
8.3.11;4.3.11 Restaurants and Hotels;221
8.4;Paragraph 4.4 Summary: The Historic Path of the Necessity Share;222
8.4.1;4.4.1 What Belongs in the Necessity Basket?;222
8.4.2;4.4.2 First Approach to the Necessity Share;223
8.4.3;4.4.3 Second Approach to the Necessity Share;225
8.4.4;4.4.4 The Individual Necessity Share;230
9;Chapter 5. Does Our Model Match the Facts?;234
9.1;Paragraph 5.1 Model Predictions and the Stylised Facts of Saving;236
9.2;Paragraph 5.2 Model Predictions and Empirical Evidence at the Microeconomic Level;239
9.2.1;5.2.1 The Necessity Share and German Saving Rates;239
9.2.2;5.2.2 Reproducing U.S. Saving Rates of the Mid-20th Century;251
9.3;Paragraph 5.3 Model Predictions and Empirical Evidence at the Macroeconomic Level;257
9.3.1;5.3.1 Preliminary Notes;257
9.3.2;5.3.2 Saving Rate and Basic Needs in Germany;258
9.3.3;5.3.3 Saving Rate and Basic Needs in the U.S.;263
9.3.4;5.3.4 Is Our Model Able to Reproduce the Historic Path?;267
10;Summary;304
11;References;310

Leseproben

Introduction

Despite a large amount of detailed economic research studying consump-tion and saving behaviour in several countries, utilizing high-level mathe-matics as well as highly powerful statistical software, the performance of theories attempting to explain the empirical facts still seems to be unsatis-factory. In fact, there is a clear gap between empirically oriented papers about saving on the one hand, and on the other one that part of the literature, which is primarily concerned with estimating the parameters for models of intertemporal utility maximisation that are assumed to guide consumer behaviour. While the issues raised by the latter interest only those believing in the respective models, publications with an empirical focus often reveal interesting relationships of undeniable meaning. Ultimately, these studies mostly note a conflict between their findings and the predictions of mainstream theories.

However, saving is certainly one of the crucial economic variables. Since private-household saving usually accounts for the major part of na-tional saving, it is desirable indeed to clarify what drives an ordinary con-sumer to save or consume his wealth, and to understand how such deci-sions are affected by changes in the economic environment or by politically controlled parameters.

For decades, the Life Cycle/Permanent Income Hypothesis (LCPIH), originally formulated by Friedman (1957) and Modigliani & Brumberg (1954), subsequently highly formalised by making use of dynamic pro-gramming techniques and optimal control theory, has been the central paradigm in economics for studying consumption and saving behaviour. The LCPIH assumes households optimise the utility of consumption in-tertemporally, subject to permanent income or life-time wealth. In this approach, saving is merely a by-product of the optimal consumption path. The exclusive purpose of saving is future consumption since the only trade-off a consumer faces is the trade-off between current and future spending.

The mainstream models are based on the assumption of homothetic preferences and additive intertemporal utility. Preferences are assumed not to be interdependent. The optimal intertemporal consumption path is presumed to be governed by the relationship between the real interest rate, rewarding the accumulation of financial wealth, and a discount factor measuring the degree at which households depreciate future consumption compared to immediate pleasure.

The central prediction of these models under perfect foresight or cer-tainty-equivalent conditions states that consumption does not respond to current changes in income if these have been expected in advance. The effect of an unexpected income shock depends on its impact on perma-nent income. If the income shock is considered to be transitory, consumption remains stable; a transitory income gain will be mainly saved, while a transitory loss will be balanced by dissaving. Only if the consumer expects the shock to be persistent, is consumption adjusted upwards or downwards. The marginal propensity to consume (MPC) out of an increase in current income is consistently assumed to be exactly the same as the MPC out of an increase of equal present value in expected future income.

Vital issues of research within such an approach are to distinguish transitory and permanent income shocks as well as expected and unexpected events. A major focus within empirical work is on estimating the intertemporal elasticity of substitution as the crucial parameter determining the curvature of the intertemporal utility function. In order to refer to aggregate data, the representative agent approach is adopted in most cases, analysing an economy as if it carries out an infinite horizon optimisation problem of a single, immortal, foresighted consumer. This approach requires a number of simplified assumptions about individual preferences.

Yet, the hypothesis of consumers monadically calculating their optimal consumption path far into the future by use of dynamic programming techniques and taking into account the probability distributions of future income streams, life-expectancy and real interest rates, is not just an ap-proach to consumption behaviour. It is one of the cornerstones of modern macroeconomics. As noted by Hahn & Solow (1997), post-Lucas macroeconomic theory stems from two essential commitments: first, a valid macroeconomic model should be the exact aggregation of a microeconomic model; second, the appropriate microeconomic model is based on intertemporal utility maximisation subject to budget constraints and technology only.

In fact, only extremely simplified models at the micro level allow for exact aggregation as the heterogeneity of agents has to be strictly curbed. Except for some recent developments in Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium modelling, heterogeneous agents have been entirely excluded in the dominant range of macroeconomic theory. We are not concerned with the consequences for the modelling of firms and competition here. Concerning the theory of the consumer, excluding heterogeneity requires a presumption of homothetic preferences; otherwise distributional parameters influence the aggregate outcome and devaluate the representative agent approach. Interdependencies and strategic interactions also have to be neglected. In fact, the standard LCPIH perfectly fulfils these needs and has therefore been used as an essential module of modern macroeconomic theory.

These models, impressive due to their sophisticated mathematical apparatus impeccably concealing bizarre underlying assumptions, are often the basis for straightforward policy advice. Lucas' critique of the Keynesian consumption function (Lucas, Sargent 1981) was in fact not so much targeted at theory than at policy. Indeed, if people do immediately calculate the permanent income value of a transitory income gain, any political attempt to stimulate demand during an economic downturn by, say, improved social benefits, is simply nonsense. Generally, if forward-looking consumers translate each piece of public debt into an expectation of an additional future tax burden, public deficit spending will only force private households to become particularly eager savers due to adjusted life-time consumption plans. If preferences are, moreover, homothetic, individual saving rates will be completely independent from permanent in-come. Under such conditions, suggesting a policy that favours low-income families in order to encourage effective demand is just an attestation of economic imbecility.

Therefore, the choice of which theory of saving is acceptable as a de-scription of real consumer behaviour and which should better be disre-garded, has far reaching consequences. Ultimately, this should lead to a scrutinising of the reality of the micro foundation of modern macroeco-nomics.