OECD Ülkelerinde Hanehalkı Tüketimi ile Ayrıştırılmış Servet Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişki: 2010-2017 Dönemi İçin Panel Veri Analizi

Öz

Hanehalkı tüketim davranışını ve makroekonomik performans üzerindeki etkisini anlamak, ekonomi politikasının belirlenmesinde uzun süredir önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışma, 2010-2017 yılları arasında OECD ülkelerinde tüketim, finansal zenginlik ve konut serveti arasındaki ampirik ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Çalışmada, sekiz yıllık bir süre boyunca 28 OECD ülkesini kapsayan kısa ve dengeli panel veri setleri kullanılmıştır. Zenginliğin tüketim üzerindeki etkilerine ilişkin ampirik araştırmaların çoğu ulusal sınırlara odaklanma eğiliminde olsa da, çalışmamız bu etkilerin etkisini uluslararası ölçekte değerlendirmeyi ve bu alandaki mevcut literatüre değerli bir katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. İlgili literatürün kapsamlı bir analizine dayanarak yaşam döngüsü hipotezine dayalı tüketim fonksiyonunun bu çalışma için çok faydalı olacağına karar verilmiştir. Bu çerçeveye dayanarak, açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak bir veya daha fazla servet bileşeni dahil olmak üzere üç farklı panel veri regresyon modeli tahmin edilmiştir. Hausman testinin sonuçları, rastgele etki tahmincilerinin daha verimli tahminler sağlayabileceğini gösterirken, Swamy testi, eğim parametrelerindeki heterojenliği hesaba katma ihtiyacını göstermektedir. Bu testler, heterojenliği hesaba katan artırılmış ortalama grup tahmincisi kullanılarak elde edilen katsayıların daha güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, esneklik katsayısı olarak hesaplanan marjinal tüketim eğilimlerinin harcanabilir gelir için 0.71, finansal servet için 0.04 ve konut serveti için 0.19 olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, analiz edilen dönemde OECD hanehalklarının tüketimini etkilemede konut servetinin finansal servetten daha büyük bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Ülkeye özgü farklılıkları ortaya koyan bulgularımıza göre, konut piyasası dinamiklerinin tüketim fonksiyonuna dahil edilmesi, modelin açıklayıcı gücünü artırabilir, ancak bunu doğrulamak için daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yaşam döngüsü hipotezi
• Hanehalkı tüketimi
• Finansal servet etkisi
• Konut serveti etkisi
• Panel veri analizi

Relationship Between Household Consumption and Disaggregated Wealth Components in OECD Countries: Panel Data Analysis for the Period 2010-2017

Öz

Understanding household consumption behaviour and its impact on macroeconomic performance has long played an important role in policymaking. This study examines the empirical relationship between consumption, financial wealth, and housing wealth in OECD countries from 2010 to 2017. This study used short and balanced panel data sets covering 28 OECD countries over an eight-year period. Although most empirical research on wealth’s effects on consumption tends to focus on national borders, this study aims to assess the impact of these effects on an international scale and makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature in this area. Based on a thorough analysis of the relevant literature, it was decided that a consumption function based on the life-cycle hypothesis was very useful for this study. Based on this framework, three different panel data regression models were estimated, including one or more wealth components as explanatory variables. The results of the Hausman test show that random effect estimators can provide more effective estimates, while the Swamy test shows that heterogeneity in slope parameters should be taken into account. These tests indicate that the coefficients obtained using the augmented mean group estimator, which accounts for heterogeneity, are more reliable. The results show that marginal propensities to consume, calculated as the coefficient of elasticity, are 0.71 for disposable income, 0.04 for financial wealth, and 0.19 for housing wealth. These findings showed that housing wealth played a greater role than financial wealth in influencing OECD households’ consumption during the period analyzed. The inclusion of housing market dynamics in the consumption function may boost the model’s explanatory power, according to our findings revealing country-specific differences, but more research is required to confirm this.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Life-Cycle hypothesis
• Household consumption
• Financial wealth effect
• Housing wealth effect
• Panel data analysis

Kaynakça

1. Alejo, J., Galvao, A., Montes-Rojas, G., & Sosa-Escudero, W. (2015). Tests for Normality in Linear Panel-data Models. The Stata Journal, 15(3), 822-832. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500314 google scholar
2. Ando, A., & Modigliani, F. (1963). The “Life Cycle” Hypothesis of Saving: Aggregate Implications and Tests. The American Economic Review, 53(1), 55-84. google scholar
3. Barrell, R., Costantini, M., & Meco, I. (2015). Housing wealth, financial wealth, and consumption: New evidence for Italy and the UK. International Review of Financial Analysis, 42, 316-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2015.08.007 google scholar
4. Benjamin, J. D., Chinloy, P., & Jud, G. D. (2004). Real Estate Versus Financial Wealth in Consumption. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, 29(3), 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REAL.0000036677.42950.98 google scholar
5. Berg, L., & Bergström, R. (1995). Housing and Financial Wealth, Financial Deregulation and Consumption: The Swedish Case. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 97(3), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.2307/3440872 google scholar
6. Bhargava, A., Franzini, L., & Narendranathan, W. (1982). Serial correlation and the fixed effects model. The Review of Economic Studies, 49(4), 533-549. google scholar
7. Bostic, R., Gabriel, S., & Painter, G. (2009). Housing wealth, financial wealth, and consumption: New evidence from micro data. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.002 google scholar
8. Bottai, M. (2003). Confidence regions when the Fisher information is zero. Biometrika, 90(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/90.1.73 google scholar

9. Bottazzi, R., Trucchi, S., & Wakefield, M. (2020). Consumption Responses to a Large Shock to Financial Wealth: Evidence from Italy. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 122(2), 762-789. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12339 google scholar
10. Brady, D. S., & Friedman, R. D. (1947). Savings and the income distribution. In Studies in income and wealth (pp. 247-265). NBER. google scholar
11. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111 google scholar
12. Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(346), 364-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285659 google scholar
13. Chen, J., Guo, F., & Zhu, A. (2009). Housing wealth, financial wealth and consumption in China. China and World Economy, 17(3), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-124X.2009.01150.x google scholar
14. Cox, D., & Jappelli, T. (1993). The Effect of Borrowing Constraints on Consumer Liabilities. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 25(2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/2077836 google scholar
15. Fereidouni, H. G., & Tajaddini, R. (2017). Housing Wealth, Financial Wealth and Consumption Expenditure: The Role of Consumer Confidence. JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND ECONOMICS, 54(2), 216-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-015-9537-9 google scholar
16. Fisher, I. (1930). The Theory of Interest (First Edition). MacMillan. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=45034afb1324936b8992579d08240eee google scholar
17. Frees, E. W. (1995). Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 69(2), 393-414. google scholar
18. Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675-701. google scholar
19. Friedman, M. (1957). The permanent income hypothesis. InA theory of the consumption function (pp. 20-37). Princeton University Press. google scholar
20. Hall, R. E. (1978). Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: Theory and evidence. Journal ofPolitical Economy, 86(6), 971-987. google scholar
21. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1251-1271. google scholar
22. Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects. Econometrica, 49(6), 1377-1398. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911406 google scholar
23. Hu, H., Xu, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). The role of housing wealth, financial wealth, and social welfare in elderly households’ consumption behaviors in China. Cities, 96, 102437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102437 google scholar
24. Keynes, J. M., 1883-1946. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money: Interest and money. Harcourt, Brace and Co. google scholar
25. Kontana, D., & Fountas, S. (2022). Consumption, personal income, financial wealth, housing wealth, and long-term interest rates: A panel cointegration approach for 50 US states. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 26(3), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2020-0057 google scholar
26. Kuznets, S. (1946). National income. National Bureau of Economic Research New York. google scholar
27. Levacic, R., & Rebmann, A. (2015). Macroeconomics: An Introduction to Keynesian-Neoclassical Controversies (2nd ed, 1-1 online resource (463 pages)). Macmillan Education, Limited. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5648708 google scholar
28. Manuel, L. N., & Rafael, F. de F. (2015). Residential versus financial wealth effects on consumption from a shock in interest rates. Economic Modelling, 49(C), 81-90. google scholar
29. Modigliani, F. (1971). Monetary policy and consumption. Consumer Spending and Monetary Policy: The Linkages, 9-84. google scholar
30. Modigliani, F. (1986). Life Cycle, Individual Thrift, and the Wealth of Nations. The American Economic Review, 76(3), 297-313. google scholar
31. Modigliani, F., & Brumberg, R. (1954). Utility analysis and the consumption function: An interpretation of cross-section data. Post-Keynesian Economics, 1(338-436). google scholar
32. Moulton, B. R., & Randolph, W. C. (1989). Alternative Tests of the Error Components Model. Econometrica, 57(3), 685-693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911059 google scholar
33. Navarro, M. L., & de Frutos, R. F. (2015). Residential versus financial wealth effects on consumption from a shock in interest rates. Economic Modelling, 49, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.03.016 google scholar
34. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1. google scholar
35. Singh, B., Drost, H., & Kumar, R. C. (1978). An Empirical Evaluation of the Relative, the Permanent Income, and the Life-Cycle Hypotheses. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 26(2), 281-305. google scholar
36. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1971). Statistical inference in random coefficient regression models. Springer-Verlag. google scholar
37. Tse, R. Y. C., Man, K. F., & Choy, L. (2007). The Impact of Housing and Financial Wealth on Household Consumption: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 15(3), 429-440. google scholar
38. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2013). Panel veri ekonometrisi: Stata uygulamalı (4. Baskı). Beta Yayınları. google scholar