Volume 82, Issue 4 p. 1199-1239

A Model of the Consumption Response to Fiscal Stimulus Payments

Greg Kaplan,

Dept. of Economics, Princeton University, Fisher Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A., IFS, and NBER; gkaplan@princeton.edu

Search for more papers by this author
Giovanni L. Violante,

Dept. of Economics, New York University, 19 W. 4th Street, New York, NY 10012-1119, U.S.A., CEPR, NBER, and IFS; glv2@nyu.edu

We thank Kurt Mitman for outstanding research assistance. We are grateful to Jonathan Heathcote, Ricardo Lagos, Sydney Ludvigson, and Sam Schulhofer-Wohl for their useful insights, to numerous seminar participants for comments, and to Jonathan Parker and Lubos Pastor for sharing their data. This research is supported by Grant 1127632 from the National Science Foundation.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 July 2014
Citations: 242

Abstract

A wide body of empirical evidence finds that approximately 25 percent of fiscal stimulus payments (e.g., tax rebates) are spent on nondurable household consumption in the quarter that they are received. To interpret this fact, we develop a structural economic model where households can hold two assets: a low-return liquid asset (e.g., cash, checking account) and a high-return illiquid asset that carries a transaction cost (e.g., housing, retirement account). The optimal life-cycle pattern of portfolio choice implies that many households in the model are “wealthy hand-to-mouth”: they hold little or no liquid wealth despite owning sizable quantities of illiquid assets. Therefore, they display large propensities to consume out of additional transitory income, and small propensities to consume out of news about future income. We document the existence of such households in data from the Survey of Consumer Finances. A version of the model parameterized to the 2001 tax rebate episode yields consumption responses to fiscal stimulus payments that are in line with the evidence, and an order of magnitude larger than in the standard “one-asset” framework. The model's nonlinearities with respect to the rebate size and the prevailing aggregate economic conditions have implications for policy design.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.