收入不平等、流动性约束与中国家庭储蓄率
|
摘要
本文以中国家庭金融调查(CHFS)、中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)和中国家庭收入调查(CHIP)三个相互独立的具有全国代表性的微观数据库为基础,从收入分布和流动性约束相互作用的视角研究中国家庭高储蓄率的问题。研究结果显示:(1)高收入家庭的储蓄率远高于低收入家庭;(2)尽管都有可能面临流动性约束,低收入家庭受流动性约束的概率远大于高收入家庭,并且流动性约束的存在会显著提高家庭储蓄率;(3)收入差距扩大和流动性约束增强时,家庭总储蓄率会随之升高;(4)低收入家庭的边际消费倾向远大于高收入家庭。这些实证结果不仅与异质性家庭跨期储蓄模型的推论相一致,也为政府促进消费的政策提供了新的思路:缩少收入差距不仅是降低我国家庭储蓄率的可行政策,同时也是促进经济增长和转型的政策。
China's economy has experienced rapid growth since the reform and opening-up began forty years ago. One unique feature of the Chinese economy is the high and still-increasing household savings rate. According to the World Bank's data, between 2000 and 2015, China's household savings rate(defined as the ratio of household disposable income less household consumption to household disposable income) increased steadily from less than 28 to over 37 percent, which is one of the highest rates in the world. Over the same period, income inequality among Chinese households as measured by the Gini coefficient also rose from 0.42 in 2000 to 0.49 in 2010. Although it slightly decreased to 0.47 in 2015, China's household income inequality is still among the world's worst. Are these two co-existent, unique features of the Chinese economy correlated? In this paper, we examine the extent to which the interaction between income inequality and liquidity constraints can explain the high household savings rate in China. First, we construct a simple two-period model that links the household savings rate to income inequality and liquidity constraints. In this model, households are assumed to be different in two dimensions:(i) heterogeneity in initial wealth and income;(ii) heterogeneity in time preference and thereby in subjective discount factor. In addition, we assume that households may face liquidity constraints. Given a household's type of income and discount factor, and whether the liquidity constraint is binding, the consumption and savings rate are endogenously determined in the model. The model provides several implications:(1) the rich save more;(2) the proportion of constrained households among the poor is higher than among the rich;(3) liquidity constraints increase the household savings rate;(4) when income inequality increases, the rich save even more, while at the same time the poor also save more due to binding liquidity constraints, and thus the aggregate household savings rate rises.Second, using three sources of independent, large, nationally representative household survey data, the China Household Finance Survey(CHFS), China Family Panel Studies(CFPS), and Chinese Household Income Project(CHIP), we present data about the distribution of China's household savings rate, the savings rate and credit constraints, and the county-level aggregate savings rate and Gini coefficient.Finally, we conduct a formal empirical analysis and provide consistent and comforting micro-level evidence. Specifically,(1) by regressing the household savings rate on income quintile dummies, we find that the rich do save more. The household savings rate for the top 20% income group is 49%—72% higher than for the bottom 20% income group.(2) We use probit regression to examine whether the poor are more likely to face liquidity constraints. The results indicate that the probability of liquidity constraint for the bottom 20% income group is 15%—28% higher than for the top 20% income group.(3) Using a difference-in-difference(DID) design, we estimate the effects of liquidity constraints on the household savings rate and find they lead to a significant increase of 5%—13% in the household savings rate.(4) We address the question of the general equilibrium effect on the aggregate household savings rate resulting from a rise in income inequality by performing a cross-sectional regression of the county-level aggregate household savings rate on the county Gini coefficient. We find that a Gini coefficient increase of 0.01 leads to a significant increase of 0.2% in the savings rate.(5) By estimating a reduced form consumption function for the income quintiles, we provide empirical evidence that the marginal propensity to consume out of transitory income for the bottom 20% income group is 600—900 yuan out of 1000 yuan, which is much higher than the top 20% income group's 200—400 yuan.This paper is not only helpful in understanding the "Chinese savings puzzle", but also has significant policy implications. If income inequality and liquidity constraints are key reasons for the high aggregate household savings rate, drastically different policies would be needed to reduce this rate. For example, the government could design income redistribution programs(such as EITC) to reduce income inequality or devote more resources to support credit market development. An economic policy that tackles income inequality would lower the aggregate savings rate, thus encouraging economic transition and growth. In particular, given the intensifying trade war between the US and China, it is important to expand domestic household consumption to ensure sustained economic growth and development.
China's economy has experienced rapid growth since the reform and opening-up began forty years ago. One unique feature of the Chinese economy is the high and still-increasing household savings rate. According to the World Bank's data, between 2000 and 2015, China's household savings rate(defined as the ratio of household disposable income less household consumption to household disposable income) increased steadily from less than 28 to over 37 percent, which is one of the highest rates in the world. Over the same period, income inequality among Chinese households as measured by the Gini coefficient also rose from 0.42 in 2000 to 0.49 in 2010. Although it slightly decreased to 0.47 in 2015, China's household income inequality is still among the world's worst. Are these two co-existent, unique features of the Chinese economy correlated? In this paper, we examine the extent to which the interaction between income inequality and liquidity constraints can explain the high household savings rate in China. First, we construct a simple two-period model that links the household savings rate to income inequality and liquidity constraints. In this model, households are assumed to be different in two dimensions:(i) heterogeneity in initial wealth and income;(ii) heterogeneity in time preference and thereby in subjective discount factor. In addition, we assume that households may face liquidity constraints. Given a household's type of income and discount factor, and whether the liquidity constraint is binding, the consumption and savings rate are endogenously determined in the model. The model provides several implications:(1) the rich save more;(2) the proportion of constrained households among the poor is higher than among the rich;(3) liquidity constraints increase the household savings rate;(4) when income inequality increases, the rich save even more, while at the same time the poor also save more due to binding liquidity constraints, and thus the aggregate household savings rate rises.Second, using three sources of independent, large, nationally representative household survey data, the China Household Finance Survey(CHFS), China Family Panel Studies(CFPS), and Chinese Household Income Project(CHIP), we present data about the distribution of China's household savings rate, the savings rate and credit constraints, and the county-level aggregate savings rate and Gini coefficient.Finally, we conduct a formal empirical analysis and provide consistent and comforting micro-level evidence. Specifically,(1) by regressing the household savings rate on income quintile dummies, we find that the rich do save more. The household savings rate for the top 20% income group is 49%—72% higher than for the bottom 20% income group.(2) We use probit regression to examine whether the poor are more likely to face liquidity constraints. The results indicate that the probability of liquidity constraint for the bottom 20% income group is 15%—28% higher than for the top 20% income group.(3) Using a difference-in-difference(DID) design, we estimate the effects of liquidity constraints on the household savings rate and find they lead to a significant increase of 5%—13% in the household savings rate.(4) We address the question of the general equilibrium effect on the aggregate household savings rate resulting from a rise in income inequality by performing a cross-sectional regression of the county-level aggregate household savings rate on the county Gini coefficient. We find that a Gini coefficient increase of 0.01 leads to a significant increase of 0.2% in the savings rate.(5) By estimating a reduced form consumption function for the income quintiles, we provide empirical evidence that the marginal propensity to consume out of transitory income for the bottom 20% income group is 600—900 yuan out of 1000 yuan, which is much higher than the top 20% income group's 200—400 yuan.This paper is not only helpful in understanding the "Chinese savings puzzle", but also has significant policy implications. If income inequality and liquidity constraints are key reasons for the high aggregate household savings rate, drastically different policies would be needed to reduce this rate. For example, the government could design income redistribution programs(such as EITC) to reduce income inequality or devote more resources to support credit market development. An economic policy that tackles income inequality would lower the aggregate savings rate, thus encouraging economic transition and growth. In particular, given the intensifying trade war between the US and China, it is important to expand domestic household consumption to ensure sustained economic growth and development.
引文
陈斌开,2012:《收入分配与中国居民消费——理论和基于中国的实证研究》,《南开经济研究》第1期。
陈斌开、杨汝岱,2013:《土地供给、住房价格与中国城镇居民储蓄》,《经济研究》第1期。
陈彦斌、邱哲圣,2011:《高房价如何影响居民储蓄率和财产不平等》,《经济研究》第10期。
程令国、张晔,2011:《早年的饥荒经历影响了人们的储蓄行为吗?——对我国居民高储蓄率的一个新解释》,《经济研究》第8期。
何立新、封进、佐藤宏,2008:《养老保险改革对家庭储蓄率的影响:中国的经验证据》,《经济研究》第10期。
金烨、李宏彬、吴斌珍,2011:《收入差距与社会地位寻求:一个高储蓄率的原因》,《经济学(季刊)》第10期。
李涛、陈斌开,2014:《家庭固定资产、财富效应与居民消费:来自中国城镇家庭的经验证据》,《经济研究》第3期。
李扬、殷剑峰,2007:《中国高储蓄率问题探究——1992—2003年中国资金流量表的分析》,《经济研究》第6期。
凌晨、张安全,2012:《中国城乡居民预防性储蓄研究:理论与实证》,《管理世界》第11期。
刘生龙、胡鞍钢、郎晓娟,2012:《预期寿命与中国家庭储蓄》,《经济研究》第8期。
龙志和、周浩明,2000:《中国城镇居民预防性储蓄实证研究》,《经济研究》第11期。
万广华、张茵、牛建高,2001:《流动性约束、不确定性与中国居民消费》,《经济研究》第11期。
汪伟,2010:《计划生育政策的储蓄与增长效应:理论与中国的经验分析》,《经济研究》第10期。
汪伟、艾春荣、曹晖,2013:《税费改革对农村居民消费的影响研究》,《管理世界》第1期。
解垩,2017:《公共转移支付对再分配及贫困的影响研究》,《经济研究》第9期。
谢洁玉、吴斌珍、李宏彬、郑思齐,2012:《中国城市房价与居民消费》,《金融研究》第6期。
徐润、陈斌开,2015:《个人所得税改革可以刺激居民消费吗?——来自2011年所得税改革的证据》,《金融研究》第11期。
徐忠、张雪春、丁志杰、唐天,2010:《公共财政与中国国民收入的高储蓄倾向》,《中国社会科学》第6期。
杨汝岱、陈斌开,2009:《高等教育改革、预防性储蓄与居民消费行为》,《经济研究》第8期。
杨汝岱、朱诗娥,2007:《公平与效率不可兼得吗?——基于居民边际消费倾向的研究》,《经济研究》第12期。
叶海云,2000:《试论流动性约束、短视行为与我国消费需求疲软的关系》,《经济研究》第11期。
袁志刚、宋铮,2000:《人口年龄结构、养老保险制度与最优储蓄率》,《经济研究》第11期。
钟宁桦、朱亚群、陈斌开,2018:《住房体制改革与中国城镇居民储蓄》,《学术月刊》第6期。
周绍杰、张俊森、李宏彬,2009:《中国城市居民的家庭收入、消费和储蓄行为:一个基于组群的实证研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第8期。
朱国林、范建勇、严燕,2002:《中国的消费不振与收入分配:理论和数据》,《经济研究》第5期。
Achdou, Y., J. Han, J. M. Lasry, P. L. Lions, and B. Moll, 2017, “Income and Wealth Distribution in Macroeconomics: A Continuous-time Approach”, Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Aiyagari, S. R., 1994, “Uninsured Idiosyncratic Risk and Aggregate Saving”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 659—684.
Aziz, M. J., and L. Cui, 2007, “Explaining China's Low Consumption: The Neglected Role of Household Income”, International Monetary Fund, 7—181.
Carroll, C. D., and M. S. Kimball, 1996, “On the Concavity of the Consumption Function”, Econometrica, 64(4), 981—992.
Carroll, C. D., and D. N. Weil, 1994, “Saving and Growth: A Reinterpretation”, in Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 40, 133—192, Elsevier.
Chamon, M. D., and E. S. Prasad, 2010, “Why Are Saving Rates of Urban Households in China Rising?”, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1), 93—130.
Choukhmane, T., N. Coeurdacier, and K. Jin, 2017, “The One-child Policy and Household Savings”, Working Paper.
Cooper, R., and G. Zhu, 2017, “Household Finance in China”, Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Curtis, C. C., S. Lugauer, and N. C. Mark, 2015, “Demographic Patterns and Household Saving in China”, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 7(2), 58—94.
Dynan, K. E., J. Skinner, and S. P. Zeldes, 2004, “Do the Rich Save More?”, Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 397—444.
Friedman, M., 1957, “The Permanent Income Hypothesis”, in A Theory of the Consumption Function, Princeton University Press.
Fuchs-Schündeln, N., and M. Schündeln, 2005, “Precautionary Savings and Self-selection: Evidence from the German Reunification ‘Experiment’ ”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 1085—1120.
Ge, S., D. T. Yang, and J. Zhang, 2018, “Population Policies, Demographic Structural Changes, and the Chinese Household Saving Puzzle”, European Economic Review, 101, 181—209.
Gentry, W. M., and R. G. Hubbard, 2000, “Tax Policy and Entrepreneurial Entry”, American Economic Review, 90(2), 283—287.
Giles, J., and K. Yoo, 2007, “Precautionary Behavior, Migrant Networks, and Household Consumption Decisions: An Empirical Analysis Using House- hold Panel Data from Rural China”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 534—551.
Haider, S., and G. Solon, 2006, “Life-cycle Variation in the Association between Current and Lifetime Earnings”, American Economic Review, 96(4), 1308—1320.
He, H., F. Huang, Z. Liu, and D. Zhu, 2017, “Breaking the Iron Rice Bowl: Evidence of Precautionary Savings from the Chinese State-owned Enterprises Reform”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 94.
Horioka, C. Y., and J. Wan, 2007, “The Determinants of Household Saving in China: a Dynamic Panel Analysis of Provincial Data”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 39(8), 2077—2096.
Hurst, E., and A. Lusardi, 2004, “Liquidity Constraints, Household Wealth, and Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 319—347.
?mrohoro?lu, A., and K. Zhao, 2016, “The Chinese Saving Rate: Long-Term Care Risks, Family Insurance, and Demographics”, Working Paper.
Kimball, M. S., 1990, “Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large”, Econometrica, 58(1), 53—73.
Kuijs, L., 2005, “Investment and Saving in China”, The World Bank.
Meng, X., 2003, “Unemployment, Consumption Smoothing, and Precautionary Saving in Urban China”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(3), 465—485.
Modigliani, F., and S. L. Cao, 2004, “The Chinese Saving Puzzle and the Life-cycle Hypothesis”, Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 145—170.
Paxson, C. H., 1992, “Using Weather Variability to Estimate the Response of Savings to Transitory Income in Thailand”, American Economic Review, 82(1), 15—33.
Quadrini, V., 1999, “The Importance of Entrepreneurship for Wealth Concentration and Mobility”, Review of Income and Wealth, 45(1), 1—19.
Quadrini, V., 2000, “Entrepreneurship, Saving, and Social Mobility”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 3(1), 1—40.
Schmidt-Hebbel, K., and L. Serven, 2000, “Does Income Inequality Raise Aggregate Saving?”, Journal of Development Economics, 61(2), 417—446.
Stiglitz, J. E., and A. Weiss, 1981, “Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information”, American Economic Review, 71(3), 393—410.
Wang, X., and Y. Wen, 2012, “Housing Prices and the High Chinese Saving Rate Puzzle”, China Economic Review, 23(2), 265—283.
Wei, S. J., and X. Zhang, 2011, “The Competitive Saving Motive: Evidence from Rising Sex Ratios and Savings Rates in China”, Journal of Political Economy, 119(3), 511—564.
Zeldes, S. P., 1989a, “Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), 305—346.
Zeldes, S. P., 1989b, “Optimal Consumption with Stochastic Income: Deviations from Certainty Equivalence”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(2), 275—298.
Zhou, W., 2014, “Brothers, Household Financial Markets and Savings Rate in China”, Journal of Development Economics, 111(C), 34—47.
① Modigliani & Cao(2004)首次将中国高储蓄的现象称为“中国储蓄率之谜”。
(1)Stiglitz & Weiss(1981)指出,只要制度性的障碍存在(比如,消费信贷或信贷配给的资本市场不完善),经济人就有可能面临流动性限制。改革开放以来,中国的金融体系不断完善,但是信贷市场的发展水平仍落后于发达经济体,因此假定所有家庭都有可能面临流动性约束具有一定合理性。
(2)这个条件确保第二期的非负消费。当τ=1时,实际上是Aiyagari(1994)所说的“自然借款限额”。
(3)限于篇幅,本文未附上证明,感兴趣的读者欢迎向作者索取。
(4)限于篇幅,部分结果未附上。2016年CFPS的结果,其他年份CHFS、CFPS的结果可向作者索取。
(5)关于CFPS数据,本文根据性别、年龄和社会经济地位等综合因素确定户主。
(6)本研究也使用其他的定义,如当年与去年的财富差减去当年资本所得等,结果类似,因为篇幅限制未列出,感兴趣的读者欢迎向作者索取。
(7)占总收入50%的家庭中,很多家庭的收入为负,故该部分总收入为较小正数,远小于消费。因此这部分样本的总储蓄率出现了负值。
(8)Quadrini(1999, 2000)、Gentry & Hubbard(2000)和Hurst & Lusardi(2004)强调,高收入企业家在储蓄中扮演了重要角色。
(9)本文用基尼系数作为衡量收入不平等的主要指标,也使用了其他的不平等度量方法,如收入前20%或10%与后20%或10%家庭的收入比率和变异系数等,用于检验结果的稳健性。限于篇幅,结果省略,如需要可向作者索取。
(10)Carroll & Kimball(1996)给出了在多数情况下消费函数为凹的充分条件,将收入不确定性引入到最优化问题中。此前,Zeldes(1989b)使用数值模拟方法说明劳动收入的不确定性会使消费函数为凹。Kimball(1990)为消费函数的斜率随收入增加而减少提供了解释。
陈斌开、杨汝岱,2013:《土地供给、住房价格与中国城镇居民储蓄》,《经济研究》第1期。
陈彦斌、邱哲圣,2011:《高房价如何影响居民储蓄率和财产不平等》,《经济研究》第10期。
程令国、张晔,2011:《早年的饥荒经历影响了人们的储蓄行为吗?——对我国居民高储蓄率的一个新解释》,《经济研究》第8期。
何立新、封进、佐藤宏,2008:《养老保险改革对家庭储蓄率的影响:中国的经验证据》,《经济研究》第10期。
金烨、李宏彬、吴斌珍,2011:《收入差距与社会地位寻求:一个高储蓄率的原因》,《经济学(季刊)》第10期。
李涛、陈斌开,2014:《家庭固定资产、财富效应与居民消费:来自中国城镇家庭的经验证据》,《经济研究》第3期。
李扬、殷剑峰,2007:《中国高储蓄率问题探究——1992—2003年中国资金流量表的分析》,《经济研究》第6期。
凌晨、张安全,2012:《中国城乡居民预防性储蓄研究:理论与实证》,《管理世界》第11期。
刘生龙、胡鞍钢、郎晓娟,2012:《预期寿命与中国家庭储蓄》,《经济研究》第8期。
龙志和、周浩明,2000:《中国城镇居民预防性储蓄实证研究》,《经济研究》第11期。
万广华、张茵、牛建高,2001:《流动性约束、不确定性与中国居民消费》,《经济研究》第11期。
汪伟,2010:《计划生育政策的储蓄与增长效应:理论与中国的经验分析》,《经济研究》第10期。
汪伟、艾春荣、曹晖,2013:《税费改革对农村居民消费的影响研究》,《管理世界》第1期。
解垩,2017:《公共转移支付对再分配及贫困的影响研究》,《经济研究》第9期。
谢洁玉、吴斌珍、李宏彬、郑思齐,2012:《中国城市房价与居民消费》,《金融研究》第6期。
徐润、陈斌开,2015:《个人所得税改革可以刺激居民消费吗?——来自2011年所得税改革的证据》,《金融研究》第11期。
徐忠、张雪春、丁志杰、唐天,2010:《公共财政与中国国民收入的高储蓄倾向》,《中国社会科学》第6期。
杨汝岱、陈斌开,2009:《高等教育改革、预防性储蓄与居民消费行为》,《经济研究》第8期。
杨汝岱、朱诗娥,2007:《公平与效率不可兼得吗?——基于居民边际消费倾向的研究》,《经济研究》第12期。
叶海云,2000:《试论流动性约束、短视行为与我国消费需求疲软的关系》,《经济研究》第11期。
袁志刚、宋铮,2000:《人口年龄结构、养老保险制度与最优储蓄率》,《经济研究》第11期。
钟宁桦、朱亚群、陈斌开,2018:《住房体制改革与中国城镇居民储蓄》,《学术月刊》第6期。
周绍杰、张俊森、李宏彬,2009:《中国城市居民的家庭收入、消费和储蓄行为:一个基于组群的实证研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第8期。
朱国林、范建勇、严燕,2002:《中国的消费不振与收入分配:理论和数据》,《经济研究》第5期。
Achdou, Y., J. Han, J. M. Lasry, P. L. Lions, and B. Moll, 2017, “Income and Wealth Distribution in Macroeconomics: A Continuous-time Approach”, Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Aiyagari, S. R., 1994, “Uninsured Idiosyncratic Risk and Aggregate Saving”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 659—684.
Aziz, M. J., and L. Cui, 2007, “Explaining China's Low Consumption: The Neglected Role of Household Income”, International Monetary Fund, 7—181.
Carroll, C. D., and M. S. Kimball, 1996, “On the Concavity of the Consumption Function”, Econometrica, 64(4), 981—992.
Carroll, C. D., and D. N. Weil, 1994, “Saving and Growth: A Reinterpretation”, in Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 40, 133—192, Elsevier.
Chamon, M. D., and E. S. Prasad, 2010, “Why Are Saving Rates of Urban Households in China Rising?”, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1), 93—130.
Choukhmane, T., N. Coeurdacier, and K. Jin, 2017, “The One-child Policy and Household Savings”, Working Paper.
Cooper, R., and G. Zhu, 2017, “Household Finance in China”, Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Curtis, C. C., S. Lugauer, and N. C. Mark, 2015, “Demographic Patterns and Household Saving in China”, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 7(2), 58—94.
Dynan, K. E., J. Skinner, and S. P. Zeldes, 2004, “Do the Rich Save More?”, Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 397—444.
Friedman, M., 1957, “The Permanent Income Hypothesis”, in A Theory of the Consumption Function, Princeton University Press.
Fuchs-Schündeln, N., and M. Schündeln, 2005, “Precautionary Savings and Self-selection: Evidence from the German Reunification ‘Experiment’ ”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 1085—1120.
Ge, S., D. T. Yang, and J. Zhang, 2018, “Population Policies, Demographic Structural Changes, and the Chinese Household Saving Puzzle”, European Economic Review, 101, 181—209.
Gentry, W. M., and R. G. Hubbard, 2000, “Tax Policy and Entrepreneurial Entry”, American Economic Review, 90(2), 283—287.
Giles, J., and K. Yoo, 2007, “Precautionary Behavior, Migrant Networks, and Household Consumption Decisions: An Empirical Analysis Using House- hold Panel Data from Rural China”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 534—551.
Haider, S., and G. Solon, 2006, “Life-cycle Variation in the Association between Current and Lifetime Earnings”, American Economic Review, 96(4), 1308—1320.
He, H., F. Huang, Z. Liu, and D. Zhu, 2017, “Breaking the Iron Rice Bowl: Evidence of Precautionary Savings from the Chinese State-owned Enterprises Reform”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 94.
Horioka, C. Y., and J. Wan, 2007, “The Determinants of Household Saving in China: a Dynamic Panel Analysis of Provincial Data”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 39(8), 2077—2096.
Hurst, E., and A. Lusardi, 2004, “Liquidity Constraints, Household Wealth, and Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 319—347.
?mrohoro?lu, A., and K. Zhao, 2016, “The Chinese Saving Rate: Long-Term Care Risks, Family Insurance, and Demographics”, Working Paper.
Kimball, M. S., 1990, “Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large”, Econometrica, 58(1), 53—73.
Kuijs, L., 2005, “Investment and Saving in China”, The World Bank.
Meng, X., 2003, “Unemployment, Consumption Smoothing, and Precautionary Saving in Urban China”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(3), 465—485.
Modigliani, F., and S. L. Cao, 2004, “The Chinese Saving Puzzle and the Life-cycle Hypothesis”, Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 145—170.
Paxson, C. H., 1992, “Using Weather Variability to Estimate the Response of Savings to Transitory Income in Thailand”, American Economic Review, 82(1), 15—33.
Quadrini, V., 1999, “The Importance of Entrepreneurship for Wealth Concentration and Mobility”, Review of Income and Wealth, 45(1), 1—19.
Quadrini, V., 2000, “Entrepreneurship, Saving, and Social Mobility”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 3(1), 1—40.
Schmidt-Hebbel, K., and L. Serven, 2000, “Does Income Inequality Raise Aggregate Saving?”, Journal of Development Economics, 61(2), 417—446.
Stiglitz, J. E., and A. Weiss, 1981, “Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information”, American Economic Review, 71(3), 393—410.
Wang, X., and Y. Wen, 2012, “Housing Prices and the High Chinese Saving Rate Puzzle”, China Economic Review, 23(2), 265—283.
Wei, S. J., and X. Zhang, 2011, “The Competitive Saving Motive: Evidence from Rising Sex Ratios and Savings Rates in China”, Journal of Political Economy, 119(3), 511—564.
Zeldes, S. P., 1989a, “Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), 305—346.
Zeldes, S. P., 1989b, “Optimal Consumption with Stochastic Income: Deviations from Certainty Equivalence”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(2), 275—298.
Zhou, W., 2014, “Brothers, Household Financial Markets and Savings Rate in China”, Journal of Development Economics, 111(C), 34—47.
① Modigliani & Cao(2004)首次将中国高储蓄的现象称为“中国储蓄率之谜”。
(1)Stiglitz & Weiss(1981)指出,只要制度性的障碍存在(比如,消费信贷或信贷配给的资本市场不完善),经济人就有可能面临流动性限制。改革开放以来,中国的金融体系不断完善,但是信贷市场的发展水平仍落后于发达经济体,因此假定所有家庭都有可能面临流动性约束具有一定合理性。
(2)这个条件确保第二期的非负消费。当τ=1时,实际上是Aiyagari(1994)所说的“自然借款限额”。
(3)限于篇幅,本文未附上证明,感兴趣的读者欢迎向作者索取。
(4)限于篇幅,部分结果未附上。2016年CFPS的结果,其他年份CHFS、CFPS的结果可向作者索取。
(5)关于CFPS数据,本文根据性别、年龄和社会经济地位等综合因素确定户主。
(6)本研究也使用其他的定义,如当年与去年的财富差减去当年资本所得等,结果类似,因为篇幅限制未列出,感兴趣的读者欢迎向作者索取。
(7)占总收入50%的家庭中,很多家庭的收入为负,故该部分总收入为较小正数,远小于消费。因此这部分样本的总储蓄率出现了负值。
(8)Quadrini(1999, 2000)、Gentry & Hubbard(2000)和Hurst & Lusardi(2004)强调,高收入企业家在储蓄中扮演了重要角色。
(9)本文用基尼系数作为衡量收入不平等的主要指标,也使用了其他的不平等度量方法,如收入前20%或10%与后20%或10%家庭的收入比率和变异系数等,用于检验结果的稳健性。限于篇幅,结果省略,如需要可向作者索取。
(10)Carroll & Kimball(1996)给出了在多数情况下消费函数为凹的充分条件,将收入不确定性引入到最优化问题中。此前,Zeldes(1989b)使用数值模拟方法说明劳动收入的不确定性会使消费函数为凹。Kimball(1990)为消费函数的斜率随收入增加而减少提供了解释。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |