IN the literature of economic theory it is well known that in a steady state monetary economy, a rational consumer's excess demand for commodities is homogeneous of degree zero in prices, and Phelps in an earlier paper (1962), and Hakansson more recently (1970), have extended this theoretical result to a time-sequenced analysis, and have by way of a dynamic programming solution shown that the consumer's optimal strategy is reflected by a function that is linear and linearly homogeneous in real and real wealth.' When considered in a macro-economic context, this theoretical proposition is subject to empirical tests for a number of reasons. Intuitively, the world in which the consumer makes his spending decisions may not conform in every detail to the one that is delineated in the theoretical model. On the conceptual level, some more fundamental issues are involved. The notion of an optimal consumption strategy expounded by Phelps and Hakansson has its micro foundation in utility maximization. The important question is whether the consumption-savings choice should be posed as a utility maximization problem where wealth is not desired per se but only as a source of a permanent flow of income, or as one where wealth is treated as a part of the choice problem. The different approaches would lead to different strategies. This point has been demonstrated, although in a somewhat different context, by Levhari and Patinkin (1968).2 In addition, as Pesek and Saving (1967, chapter 10) have pointed out, the question whether human and non-human capitals are homogeneous or whether they are subject to the same capitalization rate also has important bearings on the result of the intertemporal utility maximization problem. For many empirical purposes, the use of a linear consumption function has several implications that are either highly restrictive or inconsistent with actual experience. For instance, a linear function implies that the wealth effect on the aggregate consumption is a constant over GNP cycles, independent of the general condition of the economy or the current incomewealth ratio. It also implies that and wealth (strictly speaking, non-property and the capitalized value of non-human wealth) are infinitely substitutable in terms of their influence on the consumption decision, an implication partially due to the assumption that human and non-human capitals are homogeneous. Thus, there seem to be sufficient reasons for looking into the linearity property more closely. This paper is intended for this purpose. In the sequel, the appropriate form of the per capita consumption function will be determined on the basis of actual data. In addition, two closely related questions, the liquid asset effect and the possible influence of public debt and outside money on consumption, will also be looked into. Received for publication December 4, 1973. Revision accepted for publication May 8, 1974. * I am indebted to Ronald G. Ehrenberg for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and to Alvin K. Klevorick for providing part of the data used in the estimation. I am also grateful to the referee for his comments which improved the paper considerably. Any remaining errors are, of course, solely my responsibility. 1 In both papers, optimal consumption is actually shown to be proportional to the amount of capital (debt) on hand, which is equivalent to the notion of consumer net worth, and to the present value of the stream of future nonproperty income, which may be compared to the notion of expected income under the Ando-Brumberg-Modigliani life-cycle hypothesis. See in particular equations (6.3) and (6.5) in Phelps (1962), and equation (23) in Hakansson (1970). The reader is also referred to p. 737 of Phelps' paper, and pp. 601-602 of Hakansson's paper, op. cit., for their comments on the analytical properties of the optimal consumption strategy. 2 Although their theory deals primarily with money, the essence of the argument is retained when the role which assumes in their model is extended to wealth. See, for instance, equation (70) in the Levhari-Patinkin paper (1968, p. 748).
Read full abstract