|
海北翻译公司关键字：C / Y = (1-a)-bY / Y'--------------------------------- (4)Here, b that when the relative income Y / Y 'the greater the average propensity to consume C / Y is smaller. As reflected in the relative income Y / Y 'the greater the elasticity b, then the relative income of the average propensity to consume, the greater the impact.The theoretical model of the main problems are: the relative income of the meaning of the very few to test, and thus difficult to clear the meaning of consumption and how to budget the best way to achieve consumer expectations.
We can try, through the "China Statistical Yearbook" in different income groups of data to determine Y / Y ', that is, individual consumers, consumer groups, all income and the ratio of average income levels, to verify the consumption-based "model" assumes that the relative revenue impact on the average propensity to consume. Because from (4) point of view, in relation to a year, when b given time, Y the larger (high-income groups tend to be), Y / Y 'is larger, the C / Y smaller, in line with China to different levels of income for the statistical point of view the fact that the higher the income level of the higher income groups, the smaller the average propensity to consume.
Our estimation method is: Ci, t / Yi, t = (1-a)-bYi, t / Y't, (t [1,19], i [1,7]) in which Ci, t for the first t period i revenues per capita consumption expenditure levels; Yi, t i for the first period t income levels per capita disposable income; Y't all levels for the first period t, the average disposable income; t [1,19] from 1985 and 2003; i [1,7] from the lowest income to highest income level in turn. According to (4) of the relevant regression results in Table 2 below:
Table 2: the relative income of urban residents' consumption of the regression analysisYear 1-a-b R2 SE DW Year 1-a-b R2 SE DW1.367 1985 1.090 -0.112 0.959 0.0085(109.385) (-11.862) 1.120 -0.189 0.918 0.02643 1.148 1995(44.921) (-8.280)1986 1.108 -0.130 0.868 0.01484 0.98(52.022) (-6.352) 1.193 1996 1.130 -0.209 0.926 0.02783(42.998) (-8.694)2.074 1987 1.087 -0.114 0.924 0.01226(77.305) (-8.622) 0.952 1997 0.995 -0.162 0.918 0.02381(46.082) (-8.253)1.76 1988 1.091 -0.0979 0.923 0.01106(89.648) (-8.564) 0.802 1998 0.996 -0.171 0.895 0.02971(38.001) (-7.230)1.089 1989 1.122 -0.150 0.960 0.01256(83.754) (-12.012) 0.784 1999 0.987 -0.170 0.884 0.3223(35.615) (-6.839)1900 1.098 -0.161 0.976 0.0101 1.148(99.781) (-15.565) 0.813 2000 0.978 -0.155 0.905 0.02759(42.674) (-7.606)1.041 1991 1.130 -0.176 0.947 0.01574(62.977) (-10.412) 0.886 2001 0.982 -0.175 0.921 0.02959(41.540) (-8.415)1.252 1992 1.140 -0.207 0.914 0.02627(41.530) (-8.068) 0.963 2002 0.956 -0.130 0.810 0.04306(31.950) (-5.162)0.935 1993 1.124 -0.198 0.931 0.02492(47.121) (-9.051) 0.927 2003 0.950 -0.135 0.807 0.04699(29.874) (-5.114)0.968 1994 1.131 -0.207 0.933 0.02687(45.79) (-9.185) --- -------------------As can be seen from Table 2, the substituted data basically has a good regression results: basically similar to the correlation coefficient R2 1, T test and DW test values ??to prove the value of the regression results was established. As reflected in the relative income effect on the average propensity to consume elasticity b, in 1997, what had been an upward trend, indicating the relative income of the average propensity to consume at the impact of increased consumption of "demonstration effect" enhancement; than the 20th century, since 1997 than 90 years, b value decreased, indicating the consumption of "demonstration effect" weakened, people's consumption level of consumption by others the impact of degree on the decline, other factors affect the consumer by the intensity has increased.4, based on Friedman's permanent income assumption of empirical analysis
|