پژوهش ها و چشم اندازهای اقتصادی

پژوهش ها و چشم اندازهای اقتصادی

حساسیت اضافی و توسعه مالی: مطالعه موردی خانوارها در ایران

نویسندگان
امینه محمودزاده 1
کامیاب رجبی زاده 2
مجید عینیان 3
1 استادیار دانشکدۀ مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران
2 کارشناسی ارشد علوم اقتصادی، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران
3 پژوهشگر پسادکتری، دپارتمان فایننس، دانشکده کسب و کار، دانشگاه آلتو، فنلاند
10.22034/24.4.105
چکیده
برخلاف پیش‌بینی فرضیه درآمد دائمی، مطالعات تجربی نشان می‌دهند تغییرات درآمد می‌توانند تغییرات مصرف را پیش‌بینی کنند. این پدیده را حساسیت اضافی مصرف می‌نامند. یکی از دلایل بروز این پدیده وجود محدودیت نقدینگی برای برخی از خانوارها است. با استفاده از داده خرد خانوارهای ایرانی این موضوع را بررسی کردیم و نشان دادیم که مصرف خانوارهای ایرانی نسبت به تغییرات درآمد حساس بوده (حساسیت اضافی مصرف) به‌طوری‌که تغییر 10 درصدی در درآمد انتظاری خانوار، موجب تغییر 2.66 درصدی مصرف بی‌دوام می‌شود. همچنین مشاهده می‌شود که بهبود دسترسی خانوارها به اعتبار، باعث بهبود توانایی هموارسازی مصرف می‌شود. با تعریف شاخص‌های توسعه مالی نشان دادیم که بهبود 10 درصدی در میانگین وزنی مبلغ وام دریافتی و نسبت وام به درآمد به‌ترتیب باعث کاهش 12.5 درصدی و 13 درصدی ضریب حساسیت اضافی مصرف می‌شود، همچنین بهبود 10 درصدی در میانگین تعداد وام‌های دریافتی خانوارها باعث کاهش 20.5 درصدی در ضریب حساسیت اضافی مصرف می‌شود
کلیدواژه‌ها
حساسیت اضافی مصرف
شمول مالی
محدودیت نقدینگی
هموارسازی مصرف

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Excess Sensitivity and Financial Development in the Iranian Households

نویسندگان English

Amineh Mahmoudzadeh 1
Kamyab Rajabizadeh 2
Majid Einian 3
1 Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 M.A. Student of Economics, Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 Post-doctoral Researcher, Finance Department, School of Business, Alto University, Finland
چکیده English

Aim and introduction

The conventional notion of the permanent income hypothesis is that individuals aim to smooth their consumption over time, demonstrating resistance to fluctuations in income. This foundational concept assumes that individuals utilize savings or credit when faced with expected income changes or temporary income shocks, preserving their ultimate well-being. However, empirical evidence challenges this hypothesis, revealing that consumers often exhibit responsiveness to income changes, both expected and temporary. This phenomenon is called "excess sensitivity of consumption". Various factors underpin this apparent excess sensitivity of consumption, encompassing demographic dynamics, labor market decisions, reliance on aggregated data, superior information within households, income measurement inaccuracies, and liquidity constraints.

Methodology

This study employs the Panel-IV method to estimate the coefficient of excess sensitivity of consumption. It utilizes two financial development indicators, namely access to financial services and financial depth, to evaluate their impact on this coefficient. The significance of this investigation lies in the Iranian economic history, which witnessed financial development in the late 1990s, followed by a financial downturn. The data are derived from household income and expenditure surveys conducted by the Iranian Statistical Center. The analysis encompasses the years 2004 to 2020. These surveys incorporate data on various aspects of household’s financial information, including the amount and number of loans received and essential details about their employment status.

Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, it is imperative to use a pseudo-panel approach, providing several advantages. First, it eliminates the individual-specific measurement errors. Second, it mitigates the issues arising from the short time series data, which can lead to estimation errors. Previous research has estimated the coefficient of excess sensitivity of consumption. However, this study contributes by examining the effects of financial development on consumption smoothing in the Iranian economy. Notably, previous research in Iran focused solely on estimating the coefficient of excess sensitivity of consumption without investigating the influence of financial development.

Findings

The findings indicate the excess sensitivity of consumption coefficient is 0.266 for the Iranian households. In practical terms, a 10% expected increase in income results in a 2.66% increase in consumption. This finding indicates liquidity constraints faced by the Iranian households. Such constraints may manifest as limitations on borrowing amounts or high interest rates, leading individuals to opt for non-borrowing. The examination of financial development reveals a negative and significant relationship between improved financial access and depth and the coefficient of excess sensitivity of consumption. Specifically, a 10% improvement in the average loan amount and loan-to-income ratio (financial depth indicators) results in 12.5% and 13% reductions, respectively, in the coefficient of excess sensitivity of consumption. Additionally, a 10% enhancement in the average number of loans received by households (financial access indicator) leads to an impressive 20.5% reduction in the coefficient of excess sensitivity of consumption.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study challenges the traditional concept of permanent income hypothesis while emphasizing the importance of understanding excess sensitivity of consumption in economic research. Furthermore, it underscores the role of financial development, characterized by improved access to credit and financial services, in diminishing households' vulnerability to income fluctuations. These results hold substantial implications for policymakers and researchers alike, offering insights into addressing income volatility and its effects on household consumption in Iran and similar economies

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Excess Sensitivity of Consumption
Financial Inclusion
Liquidity Constraints
Consumption smoothing
Aghion, P., Howitt, P., & Mayer-Foulkes, D. (2005). The Effect of Financial Development on convergence: Theory and Evidence*. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(1), 173–222. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2005.120.1.173
Attanasio, O., Aguila, E., & Meghir, C. (2011). Changes in Consumption at Retirement: Evidence from Panel Data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 1094–1099. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00140
Attanasio, O., & Weber, G. (1993). Consumption growth, the interest rate and aggregation. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 631. https://doi.org/10.2307/2298128
Attanasio, O., & Weber, G. (1995). Is Consumption Growth Consistent with Intertemporal Optimization? Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Journal of Political Economy, 103(6), 1121–1157. https://doi.org/10.1086/601443
Attanasio, O., & Weber, G. (2010). Consumption and Saving: Models of Intertemporal allocation and their implications for Public policy. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(3), 693–751. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.48.3.693
Benito, A., & Mumtaz, H. (2006). Consumption excess sensitivity, liquidity constraints and the collateral role of housing. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.933296
Beznoska, M., & Ochmann, R. (2012). Liquidity Constraints and the Permanent Income Hypothesis: Pseudo Panel Estimation with German Consumption Survey Data. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2121246
Blundell, R., Low, H., & Preston, I. (2013). Decomposing changes in income risk using consumption data. Quantitative Economics, 4(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3982/qe44
Blundell, R., Pistaferri, L., & Preston, I. (2008). Consumption inequality and partial insurance. The American Economic Review, 98(5), 1887–1921. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.1887
Campbell, J. Y., & Deaton, A. (1989). Why is Consumption So Smooth? The Review of Economic Studies, 56(3), 357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297552
Campbell, J. Y., & Mankiw, N. G. (1989). Consumption, Income, and Interest Rates: Reinterpreting the Time Series evidence. Nber Macroeconomics Annual, 4, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1086/654107
Carroll, C. D., Hall, R. E., & Zeldes, S. P. (1992). The Buffer-Stock Theory of Saving: Some Macroeconomic evidence. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1992(2), 61. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534582
Carroll, C. D., & Summers, L. H. (1989). Consumption growth parallels income growth: Some new evidence. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 305–348. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberch:5995
Chetty, R., & Looney, A. (2006). Consumption smoothing and the welfare consequences of social insurance in developing economies. Journal of Public Economics, 90(12), 2351–2356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.07.002
Cho, D., & Rhee, D. (2017). Non-linear adjustments on the excess sensitivity of consumption with liquidity constraints. Applied Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1276279
Cochrane, J. H. (1991). A simple test of consumption insurance. Journal of Political Economy, 99(5), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1086/261785
Cutanda, A. (2003). An empirical investigation of the effect of borrowing constraints on Spanish consumption. Spanish Economic Review, 5(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101080200051
Dasgupta, R., Ghosh, J. K., Chakravarty, S., & Datta, J. (2015). Some remarks on pseudo panel data. In Springer proceedings in mathematics & statistics (pp. 25–34). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17329-0_2
Deaton, A. (1985). Panel data from time series of cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1–2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90134-4
Deaton, A. (1997). The analysis of household surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy. World Bank Publications.
Deaton, A., & Deaton, W. C. O. P. O. P. a. a. P. O. E. a. I. a. C. O. I. S. A. (1992). Understanding consumption. Oxford University Press.
Devereux, P. J. (2007). Improved Errors-in-Variables estimators for grouped data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 25(3), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500106000000189
Dynan, K. E., Elmendorf, D. W., & Sichel, D. E. (2006). Can financial innovation help to explain the reduced volatility of economic activity? Journal of Monetary Economics, 53(1), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.10.012
Einian, M., & Nili, M. (2019). Excess sensitivity and borrowing constraints: Evidence from Iranian households. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 28(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12233
Einian, Majid & Najafi Ziarani, Fatemeh & Mahmoodzadeh, Amineh, 2019. "Credit Cycles of the Iranian Economy (in Persian)," Journal of Monetary and Banking Research, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 11(38), pages 598-565, March.
Garcia, R., Lusardi, A., & Ng, S. (1997). Excess sensitivity and Asymmetries in Consumption: An Empirical investigation. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 29(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.2307/2953673
Gertler, P., Levine, D. I., & Moretti, E. (2009). Do microfinance programs help families insure consumption against illness? Health Economics, 18(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1372
Hall, R. E. (1978). Stochastic Implications of the Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis: Theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 86(6), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1086/260724
Hall, R. E., & Mishkin, F. S. (1982). The Sensitivity of Consumption to Transitory Income: Estimates from Panel Data on Households. Econometrica, 50(2), 461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912638
Havranek, T., & Sokolova, A. (2020). Do consumers really follow a rule of thumb? Three thousand estimates from 144 studies say “probably not.” Review of Economic Dynamics, 35, 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2019.05.004
Hayashi, F. (1985). The Permanent Income Hypothesis and Consumption Durability: Analysis based on Japanese panel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(4), 1083. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885676
Hoseini, M. (2020). Emergency Loans and Consumption – Evidence from COVID-19 in Iran. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3683572
Jappelli, T., & Pagano, M. (1989). Consumption and capital Market Imperfections: An international comparison. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 1088–1105. https://econpapers.repec.org/article/aeaaecrev/v_3a79_3ay_3a1989_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a1088-1105.htm
Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2000). Using subjective income expectations to test for excess sensitivity of consumption to predicted income growth. European Economic Review, 44(2), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0014-2921(98)00069-5
Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2006). Intertemporal choice and consumption mobility. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(1), 75–115. https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2006.4.1.75
Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2010). The consumption response to income changes. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.142933
Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2011). Financial integration and consumption smoothing. The Economic Journal, 121(553), 678–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02410.x
Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2017). The economics of consumption: Theory and Evidence. Oxford University Press.
Kuismanen, M., & Pistaferri, L. (2006). Information, Habits, and Consumption Behavior: Evidence from Micro Data. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.872542
Lai, J. T., Yan, I. K., Xing-Jian, Y., & Zhang, H. (2020). Digital financial inclusion and consumption smoothing in China. China & World Economy, 28(1), 64–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12312
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.1.65
Moffitt, R. A. (1993). Identification and estimation of dynamic models with a time series of repeated cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics, 59(1–2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(93)90041-3
Parker, J., Schild, J., Erhard, L., & Johnson, D. H. (2022). Economic impact payments and household spending during the pandemic. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30596
Primiceri, G. E., & Van Rens, T. (2009). Heterogeneous life-cycle profiles, income risk and consumption inequality. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2008.10.001
Somville, V., & Vandewalle, L. (2023). Access to banking, savings and consumption smoothing in rural India. Journal of Public Economics, 223, 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104900
Verbeek, M. (2008). Pseudo-Panels and repeated Cross-Sections. In Advanced studies in theoretical and applied econometrics (pp. 369–383). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75892-1_11
Verbeek, M., & Nijman, T. (1992). Can cohort data be treated as genuine panel data? Empirical Economics, 17(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01192471
Verbeek, M., & Nijman, T. (1993). Minimum MSE estimation of a regression model with fixed effects from a series of cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics, 59(1–2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(93)90042-4
Zeldes, S. P. (1989). Consumption and Liquidity constraints: An Empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), 305–346. https://doi.org/10.1086/261605
پژوهش ها و چشم اندازهای اقتصادی
دوره 24، شماره 4
زمستان 1403
صفحه 105-130