Empirical Economics

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 471–495 | Cite as

From income to consumption: measuring households partial insurance

  • José María CasadoEmail author
Original Paper


This article computes the degree of consumption insurance with respect to transitory and permanent income shocks. The lack of income–consumption data in the US surveys forces researchers to use an empirical strategy to impute consumption. This procedure is avoided by using the Spanish Household Budget Continuous Survey, which contains true panel data on consumption and income information in the same survey. We find full insurance for transitory income shocks and partial insurance for permanent shocks for some sub-groups. For the full sample, a 10% permanent income shock induces a 4.8% permanent change in consumption, with higher insurance capacity for college, home-owner and high-wealth households. We also compute the role of durables and family income transfers as smoothing devices. The comparison of insurance level when based on true consumption data versus imputed consumption data shows that the use of imputed consumption underestimates permanent insurance.


Consumption Income Insurance Inequality 

JEL Classification

D12 D91 I30 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Attanasio O, Davis D (1996) Relative wage movements and the distribution of consumption. J Polit Econ 104: 1227–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attanasio O, Pavoni N (2006) Risk sharing in private information models with asset accumulation: explaining the excess smoothness of consumption. NBER WP No. 12994Google Scholar
  3. Attanasio O, Rios Rull V (2000) Consumption smoothing in island economies: can public insurance reduce welfare. Eur Econ Rev 44: 1225–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attanasio O, Weber G (1995) Is consumption growth consistent with intertemporal optimization: evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. J Polit Econ 103: 1121–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auerbach AJ, Feenberg D (2000) The significance of Federal Taxes as automatic stabilizers. J Econ Perspect 14: 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentolila S, Ichino A (2008) Unemployment and consumption near and far away from the Mediterranean. J Popul Econ 21: 255–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard O, Portugal P (2000) What hides behind an unemployment rate: comparing Portuguese and US unemployment. Am Econ Rev 91: 187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blundell R, Pistaferri L (2003) Income volatility and household consumption: the impact of food assitance programs. J Hum Resour 38: 1032–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blundell R, Preston I (1998) Consumption inequality and income uncertainty. Quart J Econ 113: 603–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blundell R, Pistaferri L, Preston I (2005) Imputing consumption in the PSID using food demand estimates from the CEX. Institute for Fiscal Studies WP04/27.
  11. Blundell R, Pistaferri L, Preston I (2008) Consumption inequality and partial insurance. Am Econ Rev 95: 1887–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bover O, García-Perea P, Portugal P (2000) Labour market outliers: lessons from Portugal and Spain. Econ Policy 31: 381–428Google Scholar
  13. Browning M, Collado MD (2001) The response of expenditures to anticipated income changes: panel data estimates. Am Econ Rev 91: 681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Browning M, Crossley T (2001) Unemployment insurance benefit levels and consumption changes. J Public Econ 80: 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Browning M, Crossley T (2003) Shocks, stocks and socks: consumption smoothing and the replacement of durables during an unemployment spell. McMaster WP 2003-7.
  16. Browning M, Leth-Petersen S (2003) Imputing consumption from income and wealth information. Econ J 113: 282–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell JY, Deaton A (1989) Why is consumption so smooth?. Rev Econ Stud 56: 357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chamberlain G (1984) Panel data. In: Griliches Z, Intriligator MD (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol 2. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Cigno A, Giannelli G, Rosati F, Vuri D (2004) Is there such a thing as a family constitution? A test based on credit rationing. Rev Econ Household 4: 183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cochrane JH (1991) A simple test of consumption insurance. J Polit Econ 99: 957–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95: 508–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cutanda A (2002) La medición de la desigualdad a través de un modelo de elección intertemporal. Hacienda Pública 163(4): 93–117Google Scholar
  23. Cutanda A, Labeaga JM, Mochon F (2004) Análisis de la desigualdad en España y su relación con algunas variables demográficas. UNED Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  24. Deaton A, Paxson C (1994) Intertemporal choice and inequality. J Polit Econ 102: 384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engen E, Gruber J (2001) Unemployment insurance and precautionary savings. J Polit Econ 47: 545–579Google Scholar
  26. Hall R (1978) Stochastic implications of the life-cycle permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence. J Polit Econ 86: 971–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall R, Mishkin F (1982) The sensitivity of consumption to transitory income: estimates from panel data of households. Econometrica 50: 261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayashi F, Altonji J, Kotlikoff L (1996) Risk sharing between and within families. Econometrica 64: 261–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan G, Violante G (2008) How much insurance in Bewley Models? New York University WP.
  30. Kotlikoff L, Spivak A (1981) The family as an incomplete annuities market. J Polit Econ 89: 372–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krueger D, Perri F (2005) Public versus private risk sharing. Goethe University Frankfurt WP.
  32. Labeaga JM, Lopez JD, Mochon F (2005) Desigualdad en renta y consumo en España: el período 1985-1995. Cuadernos Economicos ICE 69: 183–195Google Scholar
  33. Laitner J (1997) Intergenerational and interhousehold economic links. In: Rosenzweig MR, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 189–238Google Scholar
  34. Lundberg S (1985) The added worker effect. J Labour Econ 3: 11–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mankiw M, Kimball M (1992) Precautionary saving and the timing of taxes. J Polit Econ 97: 863–879Google Scholar
  36. Meghir C, Pistaferri L (2004) Income variance dynamics and heterogeneity. Econometrica 72: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moffitt R, Gottschalk P (1994) Trend in the autocovariance structure of earnings in the US: 1969–1987. Brown University WP, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  38. Reher D (1998) Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. In: Strong family and low fertility: a paradox? Springer, Netherlands, pp 45–76Google Scholar
  39. Skinner J (1987) A superior measure of consumption from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Econ Lett 23: 213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stephens M (2002) Worker displacement and the added worker effect. J Labor Econ 20: 504–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziliak JP (1998) Does the choice of consumption measure matter? An application to the permanent-income hypothesis. J Monetary Econ 41: 201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Banco de EspañaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations