# Intertemporal effects of consumption and their implications for demand elasticity estimates

- 550 Downloads
- 23 Citations

## Abstract

Consumption of a good typically diminishes the marginal utility of consuming more, but for how long? This paper adapts a model of consumption capital to allow consumption to have a lasting effect that diminishes the marginal utility of future consumption. Estimates of the model find that it takes the 25th, median and 75th percentile of consumers 19, 32 and 43 days for their marginal utilities to return to pre-consumption levels, and they are forward-looking with respect to these effects. This generates intertemporal substitution of consumption that leads to an overestimate of the own-price elasticity of demand of ten percent when it is estimated using temporary price changes. In addition to these implications consumption effects share with those of durable and storable goods, consumption effects also raise concerns for capacity constrained industries because the timing of consumption affects capacity utilization. In the empirical application in this paper, price variation in one time period generates substantial changes in capacity utilization in that period, but minimal changes in other periods because the intertemporal substitution is spread over many time periods.

## Keywords

Consumption Discrete choice Dynamic programming Random coefficients## Notes

### Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Dan Ackerberg, Phillip Leslie, Andrew Ainslie, Lanier Benkard, Latika Chaudhary, Harold Demsetz, Michaela Draganska, JP Dube, Joe Hotz, Matt Neidell, Aviv Nevo, two anonymous reviewers and seminar participants at UCLA, Stanford GSB, Penn State, UBC, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, and University of Chicago GSB for their helpful comments.I would also like to thank Ken Guerra and Steve Fendrick at American Golf for providing the data.All errors are mine.

## References

- Ackerberg, D. (2003). Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: a structural empirical examination.
*International Economic Review*,*44*(3), 1007–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ackerberg, D. (2001). A new use of importance sampling to reduce computational burden in simulation estimation.
*NBER Working Paper*No.t0273.Google Scholar - Allenby, G., & Lenk, P. (1994). Modeling household purchase behavior with logistic normal regression.
*Journal of the American Statistical Association*,*89*(428), 1218–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Becker, G. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time.
*The Economic Journal*,*75*, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Becker, G., Grossman, M., & Murphy, K. (1994). An empirical analysis of cigarette addiction.
*American Economic Review*,*84*(3), 396–418.Google Scholar - Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium.
*Econometrica*,*63*(4), 841–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chamberlain, G. (1985). Heterogeneity, omitted variable bias, and duration dependence. In J. J. Heckman and B. Singer (Eds.),
*Longitudinal analysis of labor market data*(pp. 3–38). no. 10 in Econometric Society Monographs series, Cambridge, New York, and Sidney: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Crawford, G., & Shum, M. (2003). Uncertainty and learning in pharmaceutical demand.
*Econometrica*,*73*(4), 1137–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Erdem, T., Imai, S., & Keane, M. (2003). A model of consumer brand and quantity choice dynamics under price uncertainty.
*Quantitative Marketing and Economics*,*1*(1), 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Erdem, T., & Keane, M. (1996). Decision-making under uncertainty: capturing dynamic choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets.
*Marketing Science*,*15*(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Erdem, T., Keane, M., & Strebel, J. (2004). Learning about computers: an analysis of information search and technology choice. Working paper.Google Scholar
- Gourieroux, C., & Monfort, A. (1996).
*Simulation based econometric methods*. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Heckman, J. (1981). Heterogeneity and state dependence. In S. Rosen (Ed.),
*Studies in labor markets*(pp. 91–139). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Hendel, I., & Nevo, A. (2002). Measuring the implications of sales and consumer stockpiling behavior. working paper.Google Scholar
- Hendel, I., & Nevo, A. (2002). Sales and consumer inventory. NBER Working Paper No. 9048.Google Scholar
- Israel, M. (2005). Who can see the future? Information and consumer reactions to future price discounts. working paper.Google Scholar
- Jeuland, A. (1978). Brand preference over time: a partially deterministic operationalization of the notion of vareity seeking. In S. Jain (Ed.),
*Research frontiers in marketing: dialogues and directions*. No. 42, AMA 1978 Educator's Proceedings, Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar - Keane, M. (1997). Modeling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice behavior.
*Journal of Business Economics and Statistics*,*15*(3), 310–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Keane, M., & Wolpin, K. (1997). The career decisions of young men.
*Journal of Political Economy*,*105*(3), 473–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - McAlister, L. (1982). A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety seeking behavior.
*Journal of Consumer Research*,*9*, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Meyer, R. F. (1976). Preferences over Time. Chapter 9 in
*Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs*. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar - Nair, H. (2005). Dynamics of pricing in durable good markets: application to 32-bit console video games. working paper.Google Scholar
- Rust, J. (1987). Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: an empirical model of Harold Zurcher.
*Econometrica*,*55*(5), 999–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ryder, H., & Heal, G. (1973). Optimum growth with intertemporally dependent preferences.
*Review of Economic Studies*,*40*(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stigler, G., & Becker, G. (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum.
*American Economic Review*,*67*, 76–90.Google Scholar - Sun, B. (2005). The promotion effect on endogenous consumption.
*Marketing Science*,*24*(3), 430–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar