Absolute, Relative and Permanent Income Hypothesis (With Diagram)
Permanent Income Hypothesis BIBLIOGRAPHY Source for information on The formal relationship between consumption and income is derived from a. What is the empirical relationship between consumption and current income? Milton Friedman: permanent income theory of consumption. ▷ Franco. The permanent income hypothesis (PIH) is an economic theory attempting to describe how Permanent income hypothesis is the theory of consumption eventually. marginal propensity to consume is in a reverse relation with real income.
In his theory, John Maynard Keynes supported economic policy makers by his argument emphasizing their capability of macroeconomic fine-tuning. The only problem was that actual consumption time series were much less volatile than the predictions derived from the theory of Keynes. For Keynes, consumption expenditures are linked to disposable income by a parameter called marginal propensity to consume.
However, since marginal propensity to consume itself is a function of income, it is also true that additional increases in disposable income lead to diminishing increases in consumption expenditures: It must be stressed that the relation characterized by substantial stability links current consumption expenditures to current disposable income—and, on these grounds, a considerable leeway is provided for aggregate demand stimulation, since a change in income immediately results in a multiplied shift in aggregate demand this is the essence of the Keynesian case of the multiplier effect.
The same is true of tax cut policies, of course. According to the basic theory of Keynes, governments are always capable of countercyclical fine-tuning of macroeconomic systems through demand management. Permanent income hypothesis questions this ability of governments. However, it is also true that permanent income theory is concentrated mainly on long-run dynamics and relations, while Keynes focused primarily on short-run considerations.
The emergence of the PIH raised serious debates, and the authors tried either to verify or to falsify the theory of Friedman—in the latter case, arguments were directed mainly towards stressing that the relation between consumption and disposable income still follows more or less the mechanism supposed by Keynes. According to some hints dropped in the literature, PIH has the advantage among others that it can help us resolve the alleged inconsistency between occasionally arising large-scale fluctuations of disposable income and the considerable stability of consumption expenditures.
Friedman starts elaborating his theory under the assumption of complete certainty. Wealth, W, is defined as the present discounted value of current and future total income receipts, inclusive of income from assets. Under the assumption that the household is infinitely lived, permanent income can be defined as that level of income which, when received in perpetuity, has a present discounted value exactly equal to the wealth of the household.
The Permanent Income Hypothesis
More specifically, the PIH decomposes measured total disposable income, y, into a permanent component, yP, and a transitory component, yT. Similarly, measured consumption, c, is decomposed into a permanent component, cP, and a transitory component, cT. Assuming these relationships to be additive, for simplicity: In giving the hypothesis empirical substance, Friedman assumes the transitory components to be uncorrelated across consumption and income, and with their respective permanent components.
The second of these assumptions follows from the definitional decomposition and the nature of transitory components. The first implies that irregular income will not result in unplanned consumption. Friedman defends this assumption by arguing that transitory income changes are likely to be reflected in changes in asset holdings. Further, since the consumption definition includes only the flow of services from goods, transitory income disbursed on durable goods may still be classified as unplanned savings.
Top 4 Types of Hypothesis in Consumption (With Diagram)
Moreover, zero correlation implies only that the average association is zero, and positive associations in some instances may well be offset by negative associations in others. The formal relationship between consumption and income is derived from a standard intertemporal utility-maximizing framework under the assumptions of infinite life, perfect capital markets that permit borrowing and lending of unlimited amounts subject to solvency at the same real interest rate, and the condition that the utility function is homogeneous of positive degree in consumption for current and all future periods, such that an expansion in the feasible budget set arising from increased income in any period leads to an equal proportionate change in present and planned future consumption.
As a consequence, at the level of the household, permanent consumption is a proportionate function of permanent income. The aggregate consumption function then depends on the distribution of these factors across households.
If it is further assumed that the distribution of households by income is independent of their distribution by these factors, then aggregate permanent consumption obeys a simple proportionate relationship to aggregate permanent income: This proportionate relationship between the permanent components of consumption and income is readily reconciled with the nonproportionate aggregate relationship typically observed empirically in cross-sections and short-run aggregate data studies.
This is as a consequence of low-income brackets including a greater proportion of households with negative transitory income, and high-income brackets including a greater proportion of households with positive transitory income. However, without any impact on consumption, which is still proportionate to the permanent income of those households, the observed consumption-income relationship is shallower than the underlying proportionate relationship between the permanent components see Figure 1.What do you mean by transitory income
More specifically, for zero mean transitory components and a random transitory income distribution, the cross-section average income group consumes cross-section average permanent income.
Thus, the asymmetric incidence of transitory income generates an observed consumption-income relationship that is disproportional and lies away from the underlying proportionate behavioral relationship. Note that the exact shape of this observed relationship will depend on the actual distribution of transitory income in practice, while its positioning in the diagram will depend on the true cross-section average transitory income and transitory consumption values, which may not be zero as illustrated.
Over time, as aggregate average permanent income grows along trend, the cross-section consumption function shifts up, tracing out a long-run time series of aggregate average consumption and income that exhibit a constant ratio with respect to each other.
A major difficulty in attempting to test the PIH empirically is that permanent income is not observable.