NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH

Is Consumption Too Smooth?

John Y. Campbell, Angus Deaton

NBER Working Paper No. 2134 (Also Reprint No. r1320)
Issued in 1987
NBER Program(s):   EFG

For thirty years, it has been accepted that consumption is smooth because permanent income is smoother than measured income. This paper considers the evidence for the contrary position, that permanent income is in fact less smooth than measured income, so that the smoothness of consumption cannot be straightforwardly explained by permanent income theory. Quarterly first differences of labor income in the United States are well described by an AR(1) with a positive autoregressive parameter. Innovations to such a process are "more than permanent;" there is no deterministic trend to which the series must eventually return, and good or bad fortune in one period can be expected to be at least partially repeated in the next. Changes to permanent income should therefore be greater than the innovations to measured income, and changes in consumption should be more variable than innovations to measured income. In fact, changes in consumption are much less variable than are income innovations. We consider two possible explanations for this paradox, first, that innovations to labor income are in reality much less persistent than appears from an AR(l), and second, that consumers have more information than do econometricians, so that only a fraction of the estimated innovations are actually unexpected by consumers. The univariate time series results are less than decisive, but the balance of the evidence, whether from fitting ARMA models or from examining the spectral density, is more favorable to the view that innovations are persistent than to the opposite view, that there is slow reversion to trend. The information question is taken up within a bivariate model of income and savings that can accommodate the feedback from saving to income that is predicted by the permanent income theory if consumers have superior information. Nevertheless, our results are the same; changes in consumption are typically smaller than those warranted by the change in permanent income. We show that our finding of "excess smoothness" is consistent with the earlier findings of "excess sensitivity" of consumption to income. Our analysis is conducted within a "logarithmic" version of the permanent income hypothesis, a formulation that recognizes that rates of growth of income and saving ratios have greater claim to stationarity than do changes in income and saving flows.

download in pdf format
   (345 K)

download in djvu format
   (243 K)

email paper

This paper is available as PDF (345 K) or DjVu (243 K) (Download viewer) or via email.

Machine-readable bibliographic record - MARC, RIS, BibTeX

Document Object Identifier (DOI): 10.3386/w2134

Published: "Why is Consumption So Smooth?" From Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 56,pp. 357-374, (1989).

Users who downloaded this paper also downloaded these:
Deaton w1910 Life-Cycle Models of Consumption: Is the Evidence Consistent with the Theory?
Friedman Introduction to "A Theory of the Consumption Function"
Deaton w3196 Saving and Liquidity Constraints
Campbell and Mankiw Consumption, Income and Interest Rates: Reinterpreting the Time Series Evidence
Campbell and Mankiw w2169 Permanent and Transitory Components in Macroeconomic Fluctuations
 
Publications
Activities
Meetings
NBER Videos
Data
People
About

Support
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138; 617-868-3900; email: info@nber.org

Contact Us