Central European Business Review 2025, 14(1):75-104 | DOI: 10.18267/j.cebr.376

Dynamic Panel Estimation of the Deaton Paradox

Adam Ruschka ORCID...1, Martin Janíčko ORCID...2, Helena Chytilová ORCID...3
1 Prague University of Economics and Business Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, adam.ruschka@vse.cz
2 Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, Prague, Czech Republic, janicko@mnd.cz (corresponding author)
3 Prague University of Economics and Business Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, helena.chytilova@vse.cz

This paper estimates the presence of the Deaton paradox in Europe. Using panel data for 24 countries ranging from 2000 to 2021, we estimate the presence of excess smoothness of consumption. We use the generalised method of moments (GMM) estimator. We cluster our dataset, which lowers the data variability, and use both quarterly and monthly data to obtain robust estimates. We broaden our knowledge of the Deaton paradox in a new direction by using a combination of uncommon datasets, GMM and clustering. Our findings indicate that traditional economic theories about consumption may not be applicable. The evident excess smoothness in consumption patterns across Europe provides key insights into consumer behaviour, especially during periods of volatility and instability such as the present. Our research indirectly corroborates newer theories in behavioural economics regarding consumption and places them within a wider macroeconomic context. This has implications for both monetary and fiscal policy.
Business and Corporate Implications for Central European audience: The provided insights into the excess smoothness of European consumption patterns are vital for business strategy, particularly in consumer-focused industries. Companies can use these findings to improve forecasting accuracy, optimize inventory and tailor marketing efforts. The relative stability of consumer behaviour, even in economic shifts, suggests opportunities for enhancing brand loyalty and customer retention. Additionally, these insights are crucial for informed investment decisions and pricing strategies in consumer-dependent sectors. Firms can also use this knowledge in policy advocacy, promoting economic decisions that reflect consumer spending trends. Aligning business strategies with these findings not only boosts operational efficiency but also contributes to their economic stability.

Keywords: Deaton paradox; panel data; clustering; variability of consumption
JEL classification: B22, C01, C23, E21

Received: February 25, 2024; Revised: May 14, 2024; Accepted: May 17, 2024; Prepublished online: July 22, 2024; Published: March 28, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ruschka, A., Janíčko, M., & Chytilová, H. (2025). Dynamic Panel Estimation of the Deaton Paradox. Central European Business Review, 14(1), 75-104. doi: 10.18267/j.cebr.376
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Alcidi, C., D'Imperio, P., & Thirion, G. (2022). Risk-sharing and consumption-smoothing patterns in the us and the euro area: A comprehensive comparison. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 64, 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.11.005. Go to original source...
    2. Anderson, T. W., & Hsiao, C. (1982). Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 18(1), 47-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(82)90095-1. Go to original source...
    3. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968. Go to original source...
    4. Atkinson, K. A. (1988). Section 8.9. An introduction to numerical analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
    5. Attanasio, O. P., & Pavoni, N. (2011). Risk sharing in private information models with asset accumulation: Explaining the excess smoothness of consumption. Econometrica, 79(4), 1027-1068. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7063. Go to original source...
    6. Attfield, C. L., Demery, D., & Duck, N. W. (1992). Partial adjustment and the permanent income hypothesis. European Economic Review, 36(6), 1205-1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(92)90027-T. Go to original source...
    7. Bairoliya, N., Chanda, A., & Fang, J. (2021). Consumption smoothing and household savings in India: Role of demographics and durables. Available at SSRN. Go to original source...
    8. Barigozzi, M., Alessi, L., Capasso, M., & Fagiolo, G. (2012). The distribution of household consumption-expenditure budget shares. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.09.003. Go to original source...
    9. Baugh, B., Ben-David, I., Park, H., & Parker, J. A. (2021). Asymmetric consumption smoothing. American Economic Review, 111(1), 192-230. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181735. Go to original source...
    10. Breitenlechner, M., Geiger, M., & Scharler, J. (2022). Monetary policy announcements, consumers' inflation expectations and consumption plans. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 28(2), 277-298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100523000020. Go to original source...
    11. Campbell, J. Y. (1987). Does saving anticipate declining labor income? An alternative test of the permanent income hypothesis. Econometrica, 55(6), 1249-1273. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913556. Go to original source...
    12. Campbell, J. & Deaton, A. (1989). Why is consumption so smooth? The Review of Economic Studies, 56(3), 357-373. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297552. Go to original source...
    13. Caporale, G. M., & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2010). Fractional integration and data frequency. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 80(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949650802527487. Go to original source...
    14. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261-1293. https://doi.org/10.1086/230638. Go to original source...
    15. Demery, D., & Duck, N. W. (2000). Asymmetric effects of aggregate demand: An empirical test of a menu-cost model. Journal of Macroeconomics, 22(1), 29-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-0704(00)00121-X. Go to original source...
    16. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348. Go to original source...
    17. Diebold, F. X., & Rudebusch, G. D. (1991). Is consumption too smooth? Long memory and the Deaton paradox. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109680. Go to original source...
    18. Dreger, C., & Reimers, H.-E. (2006). Consumption and disposable income in the EU countries: the role of wealth effects. Empirica, 33(4), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-006-9014-z. Go to original source...
    19. Driver, H. E., & Kroeber, A. L. (1932). Quantitative expression of cultural relationships. University of California Press.
    20. Fix, E., & Hodges, J. L. (1951). Nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. Randolph Field, Texas: Project. Go to original source...
    21. Flavin, M. A. (1981). The adjustment of consumption to changing expectations about future income. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 974-1009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830816. Go to original source...
    22. Foellmi, R., Jaeggi, A., & Rosenblatt-Wisch, R. (2019). Loss aversion at the aggregate level across countries and its relation to economic fundamentals. Journal of Macroeconomics, 61: 103136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2019.103136. Go to original source...
    23. Gali, J. (1990). Finite horizons, life-cycle savings, and time-series evidence on consumption. Journal of Monetary Economics, 26(3), 433-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(90)90006-P. Go to original source...
    24. Ganong, P., Jones, D., Noel, P. J., Greig, F. E., Farrell, D., & Wheat, C. (2020). Wealth, race, and consumption smoothing of typical income shocks [Tech. Rep.]. National Bureau of Economic Research. Go to original source...
    25. Gil-Alana, L. A., Moreno, A., & Cho, S. (2009). The Deaton paradox in a long memory context. Faculty Working Papers 03/09. School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
    26. Goodfriend, M. (1992). Information-aggregation bias. The American Economic Review, 82(3), 508-519. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117318.
    27. Greene, W. (2001). Estimating econometric models with fixed effects. Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University.
    28. Hall, R. E. (1978). Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 86(6), 971-987. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1840393. Go to original source...
    29. Hall, R. E. (1988). Intertemporal substitution in consumption. Journal of Political Economy, 96(2), 339-357. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1833112. Go to original source...
    30. Hall, R. & Mishkin. (1982). The sensitivity of consumption to transitory income: estimates from panel data on households. Econometrica, 50(2), 461-481. Go to original source...
    31. Hansen, L. P., & Sargent, T. J. (1981). A note on Wiener-Kolmogorov prediction formulas for rational expectations models. Economics Letters, 8(3), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(81)90075-6. Go to original source...
    32. Liu, G., Liu, M., & Lin, J. (2021). Testing the volatility jumps based on the high-frequency data. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 43(5), 669-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsa.12634. Go to original source...
    33. Luengo-Prado, M. J., & Sørensen, B. E. (2008). What can explain excess smoothness and sensitivity of state-level consumption? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.1.65. Go to original source...
    34. Mertens, B. (2017). A comparison of dynamic panel data estimators using Monte Carlo simulations and the firm growth model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent.
    35. Michener, R. (1984). Permanent income in general equilibrium. Journal of Monetary Economics, 13(3), 297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(84)90034-5. Go to original source...
    36. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859-866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x. Go to original source...
    37. Pischke, J.-S. (1995). Individual income, incomplete information, and aggregate consumption. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 63(4), 805-840. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171801. Go to original source...
    38. Romer, D. (2012). Advanced macroeconomics. McGraw-Hill.
    39. Rossana, R. J., & Seater, J. J. (1995). Temporal aggregation and economic time series. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(4), 441-451. https://doi.org/10.2307/1392389. Go to original source...
    40. Schmidt, U., & Zank, H. (2005). What is loss aversion? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-005-6564-6. Go to original source...
    41. Thakral, N., & Tô, L. (2021). Anticipation and consumption. Available at SSRN 3756188. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3756188. Go to original source...
    42. Valle, M. A., Lavin, J. F., Magner, N. S., & Geldes, C. E. (2017). Influence of contextual information and past prices on the willingness to pay and expected quality evaluations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1604. Go to original source...
    43. Ward, M. D., & Ahlquist, J. S. (2018). Maximum likelihood for social science: Strategies for analysis. Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    44. Ward Jr, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845. Go to original source...
    45. West, K. D. (1988). Dividend innovations and stock price volatility. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 56(1), 37-61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911841. Go to original source...
    46. Zeldes, S. P. (1989). Consumption and liquidity constraints: an empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), 305-346. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1831315. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content