Leverage, Hand-to-Mouth Households, and Heterogeneity of the Marginal Propensity to Consume: Evidence from South Korea
- 13 Downloads
This study examines the link between households’ leverage, their liquid assets such as cash holdings or checking accounts, and the Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) out of income changes (the effect of an additional dollar of income on consumption) for South Korean households over 2012–2017. To build on previous studies, we precisely redefine the hand-to-mouth households (defined broadly as those who hold little or no liquid assets), and examine the asymmetric effects of the direction of income changes on MPCs. By using the methodology of Hansen (2000), we estimate the threshold of the liquidity ratio (defined as liquid assets to monthly after-tax income) and find that households with liquid assets less than about 2 months of after-tax income show higher MPCs than others. We also find that the leverage ratio and newly defined hand-to-mouth status show asymmetric effects on MPCs by the direction of income changes. The MPC of households with positive income changes is smaller than that of those with negative ones. Furthermore, hand-to-mouth households with high leverage are much more sensitive to negative income changes than positive ones. This result suggests that in economic circumstances where households are highly in debt and have insufficient liquid assets, consumption is likely to be vulnerable to negative income changes, which could hamper aggregate spending growth.
KeywordsMarginal Propensity to Consume Leverage Hand-to-Mouth Households
JEL CodesD12 D14 D90 E21
I would like to thank the coordinating editor, Prof. Charles Horioka, and two anonymous referees. For comments and discussions, I am grateful to the participants at the interim seminar of the Bank of Korea and the joint workshop of BOJ-IMES and BOK-ERI. All errors are mine.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
- Andersen, A. L., Duus, C., & Jensen, T. L. (2014). Household debt and consumption during the financial crisis: evidence from Danish micro data. Danmarks Nationalbank Working Papers, 2014-89.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, A. B., Rainwater, L., Smeeding, T. M., et al. (1995). Income distribution in OECD countries: Evidence from the Luxembourg income study. OECD Social Policy Studies, No 18, Paris.Google Scholar
- Baker, S. R. (2014). Debt and the Consumption Response to Household Income Shocks. SSRN Research Paper, 2541142, 1–46.Google Scholar
- Caballero, R. J. (1991). Earnings uncertainty and aggregate wealth accumulation. The American Economic Review, 81(4), 859–871.Google Scholar
- Fagereng, A. & Halvorsen, E. (2016). Debt and household consumption responses. Norges Bank Staff Memo, 2016(1).Google Scholar
- Flodén, M., Kilström, M., Sigurdsson, J. & Vestman, R. (2017). Household debt and monetary policy: revealing the cash-flow channel. Swedish House of Finance Research Paper, 16–18. Google Scholar
- Fuster, A., Kaplan, G. & Zafar, B. (2018). What would you do with $500? Spending responses to gains, losses, news and loans. NBER Working Paper No. 24386. Google Scholar
- IMF. (2017). Household debt and financial stability. In Global Financial Stability Report Chapter 2. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Jappelli, T., & Pistaferri, L. (2014). Fiscal policy and MPC heterogeneity. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 6(4), 107–36.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, G., & Violante, G. L. (2010). How much consumption insurance beyond self-insurance? American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(4), 53–87.Google Scholar
- Shin, H. S. & Kim S. J. (2013). Financing growth without banks: Korean housing repo contract. In 2013 Meeting Papers, number 328. Society for Economic Dynamics.Google Scholar