The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Is Consumption Growth Consistent with Intertemporal Optimization? Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey
Abstract
In this paper we show that some of the predictions of models of consumer intertemporal optimization are in line with the patterns of nondurable expenditure observed in U.S. household-level data. We propose a flexible specification of preferences that allows multiple commodities and yields empirically tractable equations. We estimate preference parameters using the only U.S. micro data set with complete consumption information. We show that previous rejections can be explained by the simplifying assumptions made in previous studies. We also show that results obtained using good consumption or aggregate data can be misleading.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Consumption Response to Income Changes
Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2010) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.142933 · Cited by 704
Havranek, T., & Sokolova, A. (2020) · Review of Economic Dynamics · doi:10.1016/j.red.2019.05.004 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Attanasio, O. P., & Weber, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Political Economy
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1121-1157
- ISSN
- 0022-3808 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-534X
- OpenAlex
- W2095308811
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
