Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On testing Easterlin's hypothesis using relative cohort size as a proxy for relative income

An analysis of Canadian data

  • Published:
Journal of Population Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Measures of Canadian fertility (total fertility rate and fifteen-year age-specific fertility rate F15−29) and relative cohort size (population aged 30–64 years divided by population aged 15–29 years) show a close co-movement between 1940 and 1976 but record a marked departure since then. The application of cointegration techniques to these series (1921–1988) shows that they do not form an equilibrium relationship even over the period 1940–1976. Contrary to the expected relationship between relative cohort size and relative income, income data by age groups show that there is no tight relationship between them. The absence of an equilibrium relationship between relative cohort size and fertility, therefore, does not necessarily imply that Easterlin's hypothesis is false.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banerjee A, Dolado JJ, Hendry DF, Smith GW (1986) Exploring equilibrium relationships in econometrics through static models: some monte carlo evidence. Oxford Bull Econ Statist 48:253 -277

    Google Scholar 

  • Butz WP, Ward MP (1979) The emergence of countercyclical U. S. fertility. Am Econ Rev 69:318–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson JEH, Hendry DF, Srba F, Yeo S (1978) Econometric modelling of the aggregate time series relationship between consumer's expenditure and income in the United Kingdom. Econ J 88:661–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with unit roots. J Am Statist Assoc 74:427–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1981) Likelihood ratio statistics with a unit root. Econometrica 49:1057–1072

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey DA, Bell W Miller RB (1986) Unit roots in time series models: tests and implications. Am Statist 40:12–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Diebold FX, Nerlove M (1988) Unit roots in economic time series: A selective survey. In: Fomby TB, Rhodes GF (eds) Advances in econometrics: Co-integration, spurious regressions, and unit roots. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 1–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolado JJ, Jenkinson T (1987) Cointegration: A survey of recent developments. Appl Econ Discuss Paper 39, Institute of Economics and Statistics, University of Oxford

  • Easterlin RA (1980) American population since 1940. In: Feldstein M (ed) The American economy in transition. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 275–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin RA (1984) A reply to Rutten and Higgs. In: Schultz TP, Wolpin KI (eds) Research in population economics 5:213–215

  • Easterlin RA, Condran GA (1976) A note on the recent fertility swing in Australia, Canada, England and Walse and the United States. In: Richards H (ed) Population, factor movements in economic development: Studies presented to Bringly Thomas. University of Wales Press, Cardiff, pp 139–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle RF (1987) On the theory of cointegrated economic time series. Discussion Paper 87–26, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration, and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle RF, Yoo BS (1987) Forecasting and testing in cointegrated systems. J Economet 35:143–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller WA (1976) Introduction to statistical time series. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger CWJ, Newbold P (1974) Spurious regressions in econometrics. J Economet 2:111–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall A (1989) Testing for a unit root in the presence of moving average errors. Biometrika 76:49–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall A, Hasset K (1989) Testing for unit root using an instrumental variable estimator: a monte carlo investigation. Manuscript, Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University

  • Harvey A (1989) Forecasting structural time series models and the Kalman filter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasza DP, Fuller WA (1979) Estimation for autoregressive processes with unit roots. Ann Statist 7:1106–1120

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry DF (1986) Econometric modelling with cointegrated variables: An overview. Oxford Bull Econ Statist 48:201–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dynamic Control 12:231–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen S (1989) Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Preprint 3, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, University of Copenhagen

  • Johansen S, Juselius K (1989) The full information maximum likelihood procedure for inference on cointegration — with application. Discussion Paper 89-11, Institute of Economics, University of Copenhagen

  • Macunovich DJ, Easterlin AR (1988) Application of Granger-Sims causality tests to monthly fertility data, 1958–1984. J Popul Econ 1:71–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson CR, Plosser CI (1982) Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: some evidence and implications. J Monet Econ 10:139–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantula SG, Hall A (1989) Testing unit roots in autoregressive moving average models: An instrumental variable approach. Manuscript, Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University

  • Park JY, Choi B (1988) A new approach to testing for a unit root. CAE Working Paper No. 88-23, Cornell University

  • Phillips PCB, Ouliaris S (1990) Asymptotic properties of residual based tests for cointegration. Econometrica 58:165–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutten A, Higgs R (1984) Graphic tests of Easterlin's hypothesis: science or art? In: Schultz TP, Wolpin KI (eds) Research in Popul Econ 5:201–212

  • Said SE, Dickey DA (1984) Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving-average models with unknown order. Biomet 71:599–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock JH (1987) Asymptotic properties of least squares estimators of cointegrating vectors. Econometrica 55:1035–1056

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachter M (1977) Intermediate swings in labor force participation. Brookings Papers Econ Activity 2:545–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright RE (1989) The Easterlin hypothesis and European fertility rates. Popul Dev Rev 15:107–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright RE, Maxim PS (1987) Canadian fertility trends: a further test of the Easterlin hypothesis. Can Rev Soc Anthropol 24:339–357

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Statistics, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, 0511, Singapore

    Tilak Abeysinghe

Authors
  1. Tilak Abeysinghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I would like to thank Paul Maxim for allowing me to use his data set for this analysis. My thanks are also due to Peter Smith and three anonymous referees for their constructive comments on this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abeysinghe, T. On testing Easterlin's hypothesis using relative cohort size as a proxy for relative income. J Popul Econ 4, 53–69 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160368

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160368

Keywords

Search

Navigation