Email this article 
A study on consumption behaviors of each generation in Mongolia in transition countries: Behavioral economics approach about money illusion and consumption smoothing
Abstract
Abstract. In this research, the money illusion not only has arisen, but it was checked that a time preference rate is not constant. If it is consumed as the younger age group and a rate of time preference changes with generations, it will be thought that 1-dollar value changes with generations. That is, even if the loss of the same amount produces the younger age group and an old age layer, if it is the younger age group, a loss may also feel the loss by a money illusion small. That is, the time preference rate which affects consumption smoothing also affects a money illusion. The difference for every generation of a time preference rate becomes larger than the influence which only consumption smoothing has on people’s economical action. It has a possibility of bringing a big difference to the economical action for every generation. If the preference of a between at the different time changes with generations, the consumer behaviors at a certain time not only differ for every generation, but it will be thought that the reactions to a loss also differ.
Keywords. Money illusion; Consumption smoothing; Mongolia.
JEL. P20; P22; P24.Keywords
Full Text:
Zotero
MendeleyReferences
Altman, M. (2006). Handbook of Contemporary Behavioral Economics: Foundations and Developments, M.E. Sharpe.
Camerer, C., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present, future, in C. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, & M. Rabin, Advances in Behavioral Economics, Princeton University Press.
Campbell, J., & Mankiew, G. (1989). International evidence on the persistence of economic fluctuations, NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1989, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cohen, R., Polk, C., & Vuolteenaho, T. (2005). Money illusion in the stock market: The Modigliani-Cohn hypothesis, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 639-668. doi. 10.1093/qje/120.2.639
Evans, W., & Viscusi, K. (1991). Estimation of state-dependent utility functions using survey data, Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(1), 94-104. doi. 10.2307/2109691
Fehr, E., & Tyran, J. (2001). Does money illusion matter?, American Economic Review, 91(5), 1239-1262. doi. 10.1257/aer.91.5.1239
Fisher, I. (1928). The Money Illusion, New York: Adelphi.
Flavin, M. (1981). The adjustment of consumption to changing expectations about future income, Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 974-1009. doi. 10.1086/261016
Frank, R. (1987). If homo economics could choose his own utility function, would he want one with conscience?, American Economic Review, 77(4), 593-604.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401. doi. 10.1257/002205102320161311
Hall, R. (1978). Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: Theory and evidence, Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 971-987. doi. 10.1086/260724
Kachelmeier, S., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preference under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the people’s republic of China, American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120-1141.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. doi. 10.2307/1914185
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainly: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-477. doi. 10.1162/003355397555253
Patinkin, D. (1965). Money, Interest, and Prices, New York: Harper and Row.
Rae, J. (1834). The Sociological Theory of Capital, Macmillan.
Romer, D. (2006). Advanced Macroecoonomics, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ryokichi, C., Tsukahara, Y., & Yamamoto, M. (2010) Behavioral Economics: Theory and Practice, Keiso Shobo.
Shea, J. (1995). Union contracts and the life-cycle/permanent-income hypothesis, American Economic Review, 85(1), 186-200.
Samuelson, P. (1937). A note on measurement of utility, Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155-161. doi. 10.2307/2967612
Shafir, E., Diamond, P., & Tversky, A. (1997). Money illusion, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 341-374. doi. 10.1162/003355397555208
Simon, H. (1986). Rationality in psychology and economics, Journal of Business, 59(4), S209-224.
Souleles, N. (1999). The response of household consumption to income tax refunds, American Economic Review, 89(3), 947-958. doi. doi. 10.1257/aer.89.4.947
Thaler, R. (1992). The Winner’s Curse: Anomalies and Paradoxes of Economic Life, Free Press.
Tversky, A., & Thaler, R. (1990). Anomalies: Preference reversals, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(2), 201-211. doi. 10.1257/jep.4.2.201
Viscusi, K., & Evans, W. (1990). Utility functions that depend on health status: Estimates and economic implications, American Economic Review, 80(3), 353-374.
Yasuhiro T. (2003). Ninngennkoudou no Keizaigaku -jikkenn oyobi jissyoubunnsekiniyoru keizaigouriseinokennsyou-, nihonn hyouronnsya.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/ter.v9i2.2337
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Turkish Economic Review - Turk. Econ. Rev. - TER - www.kspjournals.org
ISSN: 2149-0414
Editor: ter@ksplibrary.org Secretarial: secretarial@ksplibrary.org Istanbul - Turkey.
Copyright © KSP Library
