本站原创
Abstract: This paper studies the relationship between the widening urban-rural income inequality and weak household consumption demand in China. The theoretic model shows that households with higher income he lower erage and marginal propensity to consume (APC and MPC), and that the larger the income gap is, the weaker household consumption demand becomes. This paper tests the theoretical model with the panel data of 28 Chinese provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions from 1978 to 2009. The results show that with an increase of RMB10,000 in income, household APC drops by 25.6 percent and MPC by 7.0 percent; and that if the income gap widens by one unit, household consumption rate drops by 6.5 percentage points. Simulation results reveal that the widening urban-rural income inequality caused an extra drop of 3.42 percentage points in household consumption rate from 2000 to 2008, which accounts for 30.8 percent of the total drop in household consumption rate during that period.
Key words: income inequality, consumption rate, life-cycle hypothesis
JEL Classifications: E21, D91, O15
Another crucial fact that emerged during the same time is the widening income disparity in China. Since the mid-1990s, urban-rural income inequality in China rose from 2.1 in 1985 to 3.3 in 2008, an over 50 percent increase3. If income in-kind and subsidy are both counted as personal income, China may he the largest urban-rural income inequality in the world (Li, 2003). Is there an intrinsic connection between the widening income disparity and waning household consumption demand? And how does it work? This paper will theoretically and empirically study on these questions.Figure 1 shows the correlation between urban-rural income inequality and household consumption demand in China. We can see that the greater the disparity, the lower the household consumption rate and vice versa. It is clear that income disparity and household consumption he a negative correlation, the correlation coefficient being as high as 0.93. From 1985 to 1994, urban-rural income inequality was on the rise and household consumption rate dropped; from 1994 to 1997, the income disparity narrowed a bit and household consumption had a all recovery; but from 1997 onwards, the income disparity began to consistently widen, and household consumption demand kept falling. Why do urban-rural income inequality and household consumption he this stable correlation? What’s the mechani behind it?
This paper adopts the life-cycle hypothesis and engages in theoretical studies on the correlation between income disparity and household consumption, unveiling its internal mechani. The results reveal that the rich has lower APC and MPC than the poor because of minimum consumption demand and bequest motive respectively. Greater income disparity means relatively higher income for the rich, which results in lower APC and MPC of the society as a whole and further reduces household consumption rate. We also conducted an empirical study to test the above hypothesis using provinci
This paper is organized as follows: Part 2 reviews relevant literature about the declining household consumption rate in China; Part 3 constructs a theoretical model of income disparity and household consumption under the life-cycle hypothesis framework; Part 4 carries out empirical test on the hypothesis using provincial panel data, which discusses the influence of urban-rural income inequality on household consumption rate; and Part 5 is the conclusion.
Other scholars discussed causes for the decline in household consumption from the perspective of household income distribution and believe that the widening income disparity is a major cause for the dropped consumption rate (Zhu, etc., 2002; Hang and Shen, 2004; Yang and Zhu, 2007; Ma and Sun, 2008). However, they he neither discussed the mechani enabling income disparity to affect household consumption nor quantified the influence of widening income disparity on household consumption rate. Jin et al. (2010) is an exception as they discussed the mechani of income distribution affects household consumption through “status-seeking” behiors, but unfortunately, their discussion is not thorough.
This paper sets out to bridge the gap left by the existing literature and explain why household consumption rate has dropped rapidly in China. We would first analyze the logical connection between income disparity and household consumption using life-cycle hypothesis, and then empirically quantify the influence of income disparity on household consumption with provincial panel data gathered in China.
in which, T is the length of consumer’s life. U is the lifetime utility, which is the sum of the discounted value of household's utility in each peri
Similar to the standard literature (i.e., Deaton, 1992; etc.), we assume the instant utility function of individual consumer is constant relative risk ersion (CRRA):
in which, σ is the constant relative risk ersion coefficient; α is the minimum consumption, a constant bigger than 0. Minimum consumption is the consumption level needed for survival, including basic food, clothing and etc. Then consumer’s optimization problem can be defined with formula (4), a Lagrangian function:
From formula (4), we can derive the first-order condition for consumer optimization as:
Considering China’s economic realities, we assume the economy will still be growing, that is
, g being economic growth rate6. If we combine formula (2) and formula (5), we can get:
We define:
From the above formula, it can be easily concluded that , and we he:
Since this paper is concerned with the influence of income disparity on consumption, we assume that personal income is to grow exogenously at economic growth rate g, which means:
Formula (10) is household consumption function, in which
, D<1. It means that individual marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is less than 1. However, while minimum consumption exists, individuals with different income level would he different erage propensity to consume (APC). We summarize the conclusion here as Proposition 1.
Now let us test Propostion 2 and to do so, we construct the following econometric model:
cit= α0+α1 incomeit + α2(incomeit)2+βXit +εit
(21)
in which, cit is the household consumption of province i in year t; incomeit the household income of province i in year t; and εit is the error term. α1 is marginal propensity to consume (MPC) and α2 is the parameter to be estimated in this empirical study, which measures the impact of household income on household MPC and is expected to be negative according to out hypothesis. Again, Xit is the controlled variable, the same as that used in Table 2 and β is the coefficient of these variables.
Table 3 details the regression result of econometric model (21): the first and second columns present the model of Fixed Effects and Random Effects of rural household income and consumption; the third and fourth columns present the model of Fixed Effects and Random Effects of urban household income and consumption; and the fifth and sixth columns present the model of Fixed Effects and Random Effects of national household income and consumption. As forecasted by our theoretical models, the higher household income level is, the lower household MPC is. For an increase of RMB10,000 in household income, rural household MPC drops by 8.3 percent, urban household MPC 7.2 percent and national household MPC 7.0 percent13. Household income exerts similar influence on urban and rural household MPC, which to some extent shows that bequest motive applies for both rural and urban households.
References
Aziz, Jahangir, and Cui Li. 2007. “Explaining China’s Low Consumption: The Neglected Role of Household Income.” IMF working paper 07/181. Available at: e Share in China: The Story behind the Statistics.” Economic Research, No. 3.
[3]——, ——.2009. “Who Has Eroded Residents’ Incomes? An Analysis of China’s National Income Distribution Patterns.” Social Sciences in China, No. 5.
[4]Blanchard, Olivier J., and Francesco Giazzi. 2005. “Rebalancing Growth in China: A Three-Handed Approach.” MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 05-32. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=862524.
[5]Chamon, Marcos, and Eswar Prasad. 2008. “Why Are Sing Rates of Urban Households in China Rising?” American Economic Journal – Macroeconomics, forthcoming.
[6]Chen, Binkai, Pengfei Zhang, and Rudai Yang. 2010. “Government Educational Investment, Human Capital Investment and Urban-rural Income Disparity in China.” Management World, No.1.
[7]Deaton, Angus. 1992. Understanding Consumption. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
[8]Giles, John, and Yoo Kyung Won. 2007. “Precautionary Behior, Migrant Networks, and Household Consumption Decisions: An Empirical Analysis Using Household Panel Data from Rural China.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3): 534-551.
[9]Gong, Gang, and Guang Yang. 2010. “Analysis of China’s Unequal Distribution of Income from the Perspective of Functional Income Distribution.” Social Sciences in China, No.1.
[10]Hang, Bin. 2009. “Rural Households’ Buffer-stock Sing with Habit Formation.” Economic Research Jou
[11]Hang, Bin, and Chunlan Shen. 2004. “Long-term Equilibrium and Short-term Dynamics between Consumption and Income in Transition Period: An Empirical Analysis of Urban Household Consumption Behior in China.” Management World, No. 5.[12]He, Lixin, Jin Feng, and Hiroshia Sato. 2008. “Pension Reform and Household Sing: the Chinese Case.” Economic Research Journal, No. 10.
[13]Jin, Ye, Hongbin Li, and Binzhen Wu. 2010. “Income Inequality, Status Seeking, and Consumption.” Working Paper. Available at: ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/2264
[15]Kuijs, Louis. 2005. “Investment and Sing in China.” Policy Research Working PaperNo. 3633 (Washington: World Bank). Available at: ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/363
[17]Li, Shi. 2003. “Studies on Personal Income Distribution: Review and Outlook.” Economics Quarterly, No. 2.
[18]Li, Yang, and Jianfeng Yin. 2007. “High Sing Rate, High Investment Rate and Chinese Economic Growth during Labor Transition.” Economic Research, No. 6.
[19]Lin, Yifu, and Peilin Liu. 2003. “Chinese Development Strategy and Economic Convergence.” Economic Research, No. 3.
[20]Lu, Min, and Zhao Chen. 2004. “Urbanization, Urban-Biased Economic Policies and Urban-Rural Inequality.” Economic Research, No. 7.
[21]Lucas Jr., Robert E. 1976. “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1 (1): 19-46.
[22]Ma, Li, and Jingshui Sun. 2008. “Research on Relations between Consumption and Income of Chinese Citizens Based on the Spatial Auto-regression Model.” Management World, No.1.
[23]Meng, Xin. 2003. “Unemployment, Consumption Smoothing, and Precautionary Sing in Urban China.” Journal of Comparative Economics. 31 (3): 465–485.
[24]Modigliani, Franco, and Shi Larry Cao, 2004. “The Chinese Sing Puzzle and the life-cycle hypothesis.” Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1): 145-170.
[25]Rothschild, M. and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 1970. “Increasing Risk: I. A definition.” Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3): 225-243.
[26]Tian, Qing, Jian Ma, and Tiemei Gao. 2008. “An Analysis of the Regional Differences in Factors Affecting Urban Household Consumption in China.” Management World, No. 7.
[27]Wan, Guanghua, Yin Zhang, and Jiangao Niu. 2001. “Liquidity Constraints, Uncertainty and Household Consumption in China.” Economic Research, No. 11.
[28]Wei, ShangJin, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2009
[34]Zhu, Guolin, Jianyong Fan, and Yan Yan. 2002. “On China’s Consumption Sag and Income Distribution.” Economic Research, No. 5.
Key words: income inequality, consumption rate, life-cycle hypothesis
JEL Classifications: E21, D91, O15
1. Introduction
Since the reform and opening-up, Chinese economy grew rapidly. Real GDP jumped from RMB 1.3 trillion in 1978 to RMB 21.64 trillion in 20081, registering an annual growth rate of 9.7 percent, creating a “miraculous g源于：免费毕业论文www.udooo.com
rowth”. Investment, consumption and export are “the three engines” that powered this fast economic growth. However, since 2000, there appeared to be some disaccord among them: investment and export gained more momentum while consumption demand waned. In a few years, final consumption rate in China plunged from 62.3 percent in 2000 to 47.5 percent in 2008 and household consumption rate fell rapidly from 46.4 percent to 35.3 percent, 11.1 percentage points lower in just nine years2. At present, China has the lowest consumption rate among major world economies. This shows that consumption demand and economic development he not formed a forable cycle, thus seriously undermining the sustainability and stability of economic growth in China.Another crucial fact that emerged during the same time is the widening income disparity in China. Since the mid-1990s, urban-rural income inequality in China rose from 2.1 in 1985 to 3.3 in 2008, an over 50 percent increase3. If income in-kind and subsidy are both counted as personal income, China may he the largest urban-rural income inequality in the world (Li, 2003). Is there an intrinsic connection between the widening income disparity and waning household consumption demand? And how does it work? This paper will theoretically and empirically study on these questions.Figure 1 shows the correlation between urban-rural income inequality and household consumption demand in China. We can see that the greater the disparity, the lower the household consumption rate and vice versa. It is clear that income disparity and household consumption he a negative correlation, the correlation coefficient being as high as 0.93. From 1985 to 1994, urban-rural income inequality was on the rise and household consumption rate dropped; from 1994 to 1997, the income disparity narrowed a bit and household consumption had a all recovery; but from 1997 onwards, the income disparity began to consistently widen, and household consumption demand kept falling. Why do urban-rural income inequality and household consumption he this stable correlation? What’s the mechani behind it?
This paper adopts the life-cycle hypothesis and engages in theoretical studies on the correlation between income disparity and household consumption, unveiling its internal mechani. The results reveal that the rich has lower APC and MPC than the poor because of minimum consumption demand and bequest motive respectively. Greater income disparity means relatively higher income for the rich, which results in lower APC and MPC of the society as a whole and further reduces household consumption rate. We also conducted an empirical study to test the above hypothesis using provinci
源于：大学生毕业论文范文www.udooo.com
al panel data from 1978 to 2008 and came to an affirmative conclusion. The results of the empirical study are: with an increase of RMB10, 000 in income, household APC drops by 25.6 percent and MPC 7.0 percent; and that if the income gap widens by one unit, household consumption rate drops by 6.5 percentage points. Simulation results reveal that income gap increase between rural and urban China caused a drop of 3.42 percentage points in household consumption rate from 2000 to 2008, which accounts for 30.8 percent of the total drop in household consumption rate in that timeframe.This paper is organized as follows: Part 2 reviews relevant literature about the declining household consumption rate in China; Part 3 constructs a theoretical model of income disparity and household consumption under the life-cycle hypothesis framework; Part 4 carries out empirical test on the hypothesis using provincial panel data, which discusses the influence of urban-rural income inequality on household consumption rate; and Part 5 is the conclusion.
2. Literature Review
Household consumption rate has been dropping quickly in recent years. This has caught much attention of scholars and many explanations are made. The first explanation is based on life-cycle hypothesis (Modigliani and Cao, 2004), which holds that the rise in the proportion of working population raises household sings and reduces household consumption. However, it is not consistent with the consumption/sings behiors of Chinese households (Chamon and Prasad, 2008) and its explanation on macroeconomic data is also questionable (Kraay, 2000). The second explanation derives from Liquidity Constraint Hypothesis, which maintains that China’s underdeveloped financial market has encouraged households and corporations to se more, reducing the consumption rate (Wang, etc., 2001; Kujis, 2005; Aziz and Cui, 2007; etc.). However, China’s financial system has actually been improving over the years, while household consumption rate continues to decline. The third explanation considers factors like culture, habits and family preference (Ye, 2000; Tian, etc., 2008; Hang, 2009; etc.). Again, cultural factors, which he been lasted for a long time, cannot possibly explain the rapid drop of household consumption rate since 2000. The fourth explanation is premised on the theory of precautionary sings, saying that reforms in medical, pension, education and housing systems he increased uncertainties in household income and expenditure and also unemployment risks in the market. This has strengthened motivation for precautionary sings, resulting in rising household sings rate and falling consumption rate (Meng, 2003; Blanchard and Giazzi, 2005; Giles and Yoo, 2007; He, etc., 2008; Yang and Chen, 2009; Zhou, etc., 2009). However, there are no direct evidence confirming that consumption rate drop in recent years can be fully accounted for by labor market risks and uncertainties in income and expenditure.In recent years, scholars also began to notice the influence of national income distribution structure on household consumption. Some he proceeded from the perspective of income distribution (Kuijs, 2005; Aziz and Cui, 2007; Li and Yin, 2007; Xu, etc., 2010) and believed that the income distribution structure that fors corporations and摘自：毕业论文摘要www.udooo.com
the state should be responsible for weak internal demand in China. At the same time, bountiful literature began discussing the determinants in China’s income distribution structure (for instance, Bai and Qian, 2009a, 200b; Li, etc., 2009; Gong andYang, etc., 2010), and they point out that economic development, urban-rural dual structure, urbanization, industrial restructuring are perhaps the main causes for the twisted income distribution and falling household consumption rate. However, studies from the perspective of income distribution cannot explain why household sings rate in China has been rising rapidly since 2000. China’s household sings rate was only 27.5 percent in 2000; however, it reached as high as 37.9 percent in 2007, an increase of more than 10 percentage points4. Falling proportion of household income in the national income cannot justify the rapid increase of household sings rate at a given income level5, while increasing household sings rate happens to be the most crucial reason for weak consumption demand.Other scholars discussed causes for the decline in household consumption from the perspective of household income distribution and believe that the widening income disparity is a major cause for the dropped consumption rate (Zhu, etc., 2002; Hang and Shen, 2004; Yang and Zhu, 2007; Ma and Sun, 2008). However, they he neither discussed the mechani enabling income disparity to affect household consumption nor quantified the influence of widening income disparity on household consumption rate. Jin et al. (2010) is an exception as they discussed the mechani of income distribution affects household consumption through “status-seeking” behiors, but unfortunately, their discussion is not thorough.
This paper sets out to bridge the gap left by the existing literature and explain why household consumption rate has dropped rapidly in China. We would first analyze the logical connection between income disparity and household consumption using life-cycle hypothesis, and then empirically quantify the influence of income disparity on household consumption with provincial panel data gathered in China.
3.Theoretic Model
In this part, we will use life-cycle framework to study the relationship between income disparity and household consumption and analyze the mechani through which income distribution affects household consumption. Conventional Keynesian theories define household consumption simply as the function of current income, which is widely criticized for lacking micro-basis and empirical support (Lucas, 1976). However, life-cycle hypothesis and permanent income hypothesis (PIH) are premised on more solid micro-ground and are the milestone of modern consumption theory and also the foundation of this paper’s theoretical framework.3.1 Benchmark Model
Under the standard Life Cycle Framework, consumer's optimization problem is:in which, T is the length of consumer’s life. U is the lifetime utility, which is the sum of the discounted value of household's utility in each peri
摘自：毕业论文任务书www.udooo.com
od u(ct). ρ is the discount factor being. W is consumer’s lifetime wealth and the budgetary constraint is that the present value of consumption cannot exceed the total wealth W. The discount factor for consumption is interest rate r.Similar to the standard literature (i.e., Deaton, 1992; etc.), we assume the instant utility function of individual consumer is constant relative risk ersion (CRRA):
in which, σ is the constant relative risk ersion coefficient; α is the minimum consumption, a constant bigger than 0. Minimum consumption is the consumption level needed for survival, including basic food, clothing and etc. Then consumer’s optimization problem can be defined with formula (4), a Lagrangian function:
From formula (4), we can derive the first-order condition for consumer optimization as:
Considering China’s economic realities, we assume the economy will still be growing, that is
, g being economic growth rate6. If we combine formula (2) and formula (5), we can get:
We define:
From the above formula, it can be easily concluded that , and we he:
Since this paper is concerned with the influence of income disparity on consumption, we assume that personal income is to grow exogenously at economic growth rate g, which means:
Formula (10) is household consumption function, in which
, D<1. It means that individual marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is less than 1. However, while minimum consumption exists, individuals with different income level would he different erage propensity to consume (APC). We summarize the conclusion here as Proposition 1.
源于：毕业论文致谢怎么写www.udooo.com
源于：论文范文格式www.udooo.com
源于：科研方法与论文写作www.udooo.com
论文下载中心www.udooo.com
源于：查抄袭率硕士毕业论文www.udooo.com
As for the other controlled variables, per capita GDP has a positive influence on household APC and this influence tends to increase as per capita GDP rises. I摘自：毕业论文下载www.udooo.com
t should be noted that these results are reached under the precondition that erage household income is controlled. With a given household income, it is likely that the positive influence of per capita GDP and government expenditure on household APC may only be a reflection of the complementarity between household consumption, local economic development and government expenditure. For instance, regions hing higer per capita GDP and government expenditure could provide better education and households perhaps would also increase their consumption of education services. Trade dependency has a negative influence on urban and rural household APC, which perhaps is due to the fact that households in regions with greater openness faces bigger income uncertainties and he lower APC.Now let us test Propostion 2 and to do so, we construct the following econometric model:
cit= α0+α1 incomeit + α2(incomeit)2+βXit +εit
(21)
in which, cit is the household consumption of province i in year t; incomeit the household income of province i in year t; and εit is the error term. α1 is marginal propensity to consume (MPC) and α2 is the parameter to be estimated in this empirical study, which measures the impact of household income on household MPC and is expected to be negative according to out hypothesis. Again, Xit is the controlled variable, the same as that used in Table 2 and β is the coefficient of these variables.
Table 3 details the regression result of econometric model (21): the first and second columns present the model of Fixed Effects and Random Effects of rural household income and consumption; the third and fourth columns present the model of Fixed Effects and Random Effects of urban household income and consumption; and the fifth and sixth columns present the model of Fixed Effects and Random Effects of national household income and consumption. As forecasted by our theoretical models, the higher household income level is, the lower household MPC is. For an increase of RMB10,000 in household income, rural household MPC drops by 8.3 percent, urban household MPC 7.2 percent and national household MPC 7.0 percent13. Household income exerts similar influence on urban and rural household MPC, which to some extent shows that bequest motive applies for both rural and urban households.
源于：科技论文写作www.udooo.com
However, there has not emerged a consensus on how to turn around the widening income disparity. For a long time, the government has pursued a welfare system that fors cities (like social welfare, medical insurance and etc.) and an investment policy that prefers the cities (like educational investment). These practices he resulted in the ever widening urban-rural income inequality. Only by vastly increasing public investment in rural China can we effectively stop the widening urban-rural income inequality, increase household consumption and achieve fast and sound economic growth.References
Aziz, Jahangir, and Cui Li. 2007. “Explaining China’s Low Consumption: The Neglected Role of Household Income.” IMF working paper 07/181. Available at: e Share in China: The Story behind the Statistics.” Economic Research, No. 3.
[3]——, ——.2009. “Who Has Eroded Residents’ Incomes? An Analysis of China’s National Income Distribution Patterns.” Social Sciences in China, No. 5.
[4]Blanchard, Olivier J., and Francesco Giazzi. 2005. “Rebalancing Growth in China: A Three-Handed Approach.” MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 05-32. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=862524.
[5]Chamon, Marcos, and Eswar Prasad. 2008. “Why Are Sing Rates of Urban Households in China Rising?” American Economic Journal – Macroeconomics, forthcoming.
[6]Chen, Binkai, Pengfei Zhang, and Rudai Yang. 2010. “Government Educational Investment, Human Capital Investment and Urban-rural Income Disparity in China.” Management World, No.1.
[7]Deaton, Angus. 1992. Understanding Consumption. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
[8]Giles, John, and Yoo Kyung Won. 2007. “Precautionary Behior, Migrant Networks, and Household Consumption Decisions: An Empirical Analysis Using Household Panel Data from Rural China.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3): 534-551.
[9]Gong, Gang, and Guang Yang. 2010. “Analysis of China’s Unequal Distribution of Income from the Perspective of Functional Income Distribution.” Social Sciences in China, No.1.
[10]Hang, Bin. 2009. “Rural Households’ Buffer-stock Sing with Habit Formation.” Economic Research Jou
源于：www.udooo.com
rnal, No.1.[11]Hang, Bin, and Chunlan Shen. 2004. “Long-term Equilibrium and Short-term Dynamics between Consumption and Income in Transition Period: An Empirical Analysis of Urban Household Consumption Behior in China.” Management World, No. 5.[12]He, Lixin, Jin Feng, and Hiroshia Sato. 2008. “Pension Reform and Household Sing: the Chinese Case.” Economic Research Journal, No. 10.
[13]Jin, Ye, Hongbin Li, and Binzhen Wu. 2010. “Income Inequality, Status Seeking, and Consumption.” Working Paper. Available at: ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/2264
1.html
[14]Kraay, Aart. 2000. “Household Sings in China.” The World Bank Economic Review, 14(2): 545-570.[15]Kuijs, Louis. 2005. “Investment and Sing in China.” Policy Research Working PaperNo. 3633 (Washington: World Bank). Available at: ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/363
3.html
[16]Li, Daokui, Linlin Liu, and Hongling Wang. 2009. “The U Curve of Labor Share in GDP during Economic Development.” Economic Research, No.1.[17]Li, Shi. 2003. “Studies on Personal Income Distribution: Review and Outlook.” Economics Quarterly, No. 2.
[18]Li, Yang, and Jianfeng Yin. 2007. “High Sing Rate, High Investment Rate and Chinese Economic Growth during Labor Transition.” Economic Research, No. 6.
[19]Lin, Yifu, and Peilin Liu. 2003. “Chinese Development Strategy and Economic Convergence.” Economic Research, No. 3.
[20]Lu, Min, and Zhao Chen. 2004. “Urbanization, Urban-Biased Economic Policies and Urban-Rural Inequality.” Economic Research, No. 7.
[21]Lucas Jr., Robert E. 1976. “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1 (1): 19-46.
[22]Ma, Li, and Jingshui Sun. 2008. “Research on Relations between Consumption and Income of Chinese Citizens Based on the Spatial Auto-regression Model.” Management World, No.1.
[23]Meng, Xin. 2003. “Unemployment, Consumption Smoothing, and Precautionary Sing in Urban China.” Journal of Comparative Economics. 31 (3): 465–485.
[24]Modigliani, Franco, and Shi Larry Cao, 2004. “The Chinese Sing Puzzle and the life-cycle hypothesis.” Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1): 145-170.
[25]Rothschild, M. and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 1970. “Increasing Risk: I. A definition.” Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3): 225-243.
[26]Tian, Qing, Jian Ma, and Tiemei Gao. 2008. “An Analysis of the Regional Differences in Factors Affecting Urban Household Consumption in China.” Management World, No. 7.
[27]Wan, Guanghua, Yin Zhang, and Jiangao Niu. 2001. “Liquidity Constraints, Uncertainty and Household Consumption in China.” Economic Research, No. 11.
[28]Wei, ShangJin, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2009
摘自：论文查重www.udooo.com
. “The Competitive Sing Motive: Evidence from Rising Sex Ratios and Sings Rates in China.” Working Paper 15093, National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: e, Consumption and Sing Behior of Chinese Urban Households: A Cohort Analysis.” Economics Quarterly, 8(4).[34]Zhu, Guolin, Jianyong Fan, and Yan Yan. 2002. “On China’s Consumption Sag and Income Distribution.” Economic Research, No. 5.