首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      

中国城镇家庭的资产配置与消费行为:理论与证据
引用本文:蒋涛,董兵兵,张远.中国城镇家庭的资产配置与消费行为:理论与证据[J].金融研究,2019,473(11):133-152.
作者姓名:蒋涛  董兵兵  张远
作者单位:西南财经大学中国家庭金融调查与研究中心,四川成都 610074; 中央财经大学金融学院,北京 100081; 中国邮政储蓄银行资产负债部,北京 100808
基金项目:* 本文感谢“高等学校学科创新引智计划”(项目编号B16040)、国家自然科学基金应急管理项目“中国银行业信贷整体性风险的防范与化解”(项目编号:71850008)、教育部哲学社会科学研究后期资助重大项目“非金融企业杠杆率的分化与结构性去杠杆研究”(项目编号18JHQ010)、中央财经大学重大科研课题培育项目“中国金融结构与经济增长”(项目编号:14ZZD004)、中央财经大学青蓝科研团队“国际资本流动管理:政策效果评估及国际协作”、中央财经大学全球经济与可持续发展研究中心“杠杆率分化、金融风险与高质量增长”项目以及国家社科基金一般项目“乡村振兴背景下金融素养对新疆农村居民参与普惠金融的效率研究”(项目编号:19BJY160)的资助。
摘    要:根据流动性资产和非流动性资产的配置组合,家庭可以分为P-HtM(贫穷月光族)、W-HtM(富裕月光族)、P-nHtM(贫穷非月光族)和W-nHtM(富裕非月光族)四类,他们表现出各自不同的消费特征。利用中国家庭金融调查2011年至2017年四轮数据,我们发现中国城镇家庭中四种类型的占比分别为6.8%、36.7%、6.6%和49.9%;在消费—收入弹性上,P-HtM和W-HtM家庭显著高于W-nHtM家庭,而P-nHtM家庭显著低于W-nHtM家庭;在暂时性收入冲击的边际消费倾向上,P-HtM和W-HtM家庭大于W-nHtM家庭,而P-nHtM家庭小于W-nHtM家庭。这些发现意味着,若要取得更好的消费刺激效果,需要更加精准的消费刺激政策。

关 键 词:家庭资产配置  流动性约束  边际消费倾向  财政政策  

Asset Portfolios and Household Consumption in Urban China: Theory and Evidence
JIANG Tao,DONG Bingbing,ZHANG Yuan.Asset Portfolios and Household Consumption in Urban China: Theory and Evidence[J].Journal of Financial Research,2019,473(11):133-152.
Authors:JIANG Tao  DONG Bingbing  ZHANG Yuan
Institution:Southwestern University of Finance and Economics; Central University of Finance and Economics; Postal Savings Bank of China
Abstract:Many countries, including China, have adopted fiscal policies such as tax cuts and subsidies to boost consumption. However, how effective these policies are is a matter of some debate. Previous studies have traditionally focused on relatively poor families because they have higher marginal propensity to consume (MPC) and therefore fiscal policy oriented to such families should be more effective (Galí et al., 2007, Morita 2015). Carroll et al. (2014) further show that the more inequality, the higher aggregate MPC in response to temporary income shocks. These studies follow Campbell and Mankiw (1989, 1990) in describing the poor as those who consume all their income, namely, hand-to-mouth (HtM) households, in contrast to households that do not do so and typically have greater wealth (non-HtM). Wealthy or non-HtM households have low MPC. However, such studies have neglected the possibility that even wealthy households may also have high MPC. The idea is that some wealthy households may have a large amount of illiquid assets but few liquid assets, versus households that have both. These families do not usually liquidify their asset holdings to make consumption smoother, and they therefore tend to consume more in response to a temporary income shock (due to tax cuts or subsidies). Kaplan and Violante (2014a, 2014b) formalize this scenario and re-categorize this group of households as “wealthy HtM households.” Such households are wealthy in terms of total wealth but are HtM because they consume almost all their income.
Our first contribution is to re-examine the strategy for selecting types of households and quantifying the shares of different households. We focus on the consumption behavior of urban households and exclude those living in rural areas, as the former have more reliable data and regular income flows. We differ from previous studies of China in that we use four rounds of China Households Finance Survey (CHFS) data (from 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) and perform a more thorough analysis by comparing different selection criteria. We consider the following concerns. First, Chinese households are more prone to savings and keep more liquid assets. Second, the liquidity of assets is slightly different compared other countries. In particular, we take time deposits, bank issued investment products, and treasury bonds as liquid assets because they have much lower returns and higher liquidity than real estate, the main component of illiquid assets in China. We apply different thresholds of liquid assets over yearly income ratio to determine which households are HtM, complemented by the consumption over income ratio, which is also used in Kaplan and Violante (2014). We find a significantly higher threshold of liquid assets over yearly income ratio, 1/4, than has been used in the literature (1/24). Considering real estate as the main component of illiquid assets, we also use the net value of housing (total market value minus debt and mortgage) to determine whether a household is wealthy.
With this selection strategy, we find the following evidence from Chinese urban households. First, the wealthy HtM share is about 36.7%, higher than the upper bounds estimated by He and Zang (2016) and Cui and Feng (2017). We then estimate the heterogeneity of consumption behavior over different types of households. The estimated consumption income elasticities for poor HtM and wealthy HtM households are 4.4% and 5.9% higher than wealthy non-HtM households, respectively. The MPCs to temporary income for poor HtM and wealthy HtM households are 0.069 and 0.09, compared to 0.045 for wealthy non-HtM households.
Another contribution of the paper is its recognition of the fact that most households in China must save a high down payment to buy real estate. These households have relatively more liquid assets and negligible illiquid assets. They have smaller MPC compared to wealthy non-HtM households, as shown in a previous study (Zang and Zhang, 2018). Their consumption income elasticity is also 2.7% lower than that of wealthy non-HtM households.
Our study has several policy implications. First, we show that the share of wealthy HtM households is larger than previously reported in urban China. These households have high MPC and should be targeted by policies intended to boost aggregate consumption. Second, there is a significant group of poor non-HtM households in China that should not be ignored.
Keywords:Asset Portfolio  Liquidity Constraint  MPC  Fiscal Policy  
点击此处可从《金融研究》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《金融研究》下载免费的PDF全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号