Statements :
I. The current consumption is a function of not only current income, but also the past income.
II. There is asymmetrical relationship between income and consumption during contraction and expansion.
III. Consumption income relationship is irreversible.
IV. Consumption falls less than income during depression, but the rise in consumption is much more during expansion.
Codes :
James Duesenberry's Past Income Hypothesis (also known as the Relative Income Hypothesis) explains consumption behavior based on past income levels and social comparisons. Let's analyze each statement:
This statement is correct. A key element of Duesenberry's theory is that current consumption is influenced not just by current income, but significantly by the highest income previously attained (past peak income). This is often referred to as the "habit formation" or "demonstration effect".
This statement is correct. Duesenberry argued that the relationship between income and consumption is asymmetrical. When income rises, consumption tends to rise proportionally. However, when income falls, consumption tends to fall, but by a smaller proportion, as people try to maintain their established living standards.
This statement is correct. It directly relates to the asymmetry mentioned above. Once consumption spending has increased due to higher past income, it is "sticky" or irreversible downwards. Consumers are reluctant to reduce their consumption levels significantly even when facing a temporary income drop, leading to a ratchet effect.
This statement is correct and elaborates on the asymmetry. During a downturn ('depression'), consumption falls less than income because people dip into savings or reduce savings rate to maintain spending levels. During an expansion, consumption rises, reflecting the adjustment to higher income levels and potentially the desire to "keep up" with peers, reinforcing the established consumption patterns.
Based on the analysis, all four statements accurately reflect the core propositions of Duesenberry's Past Income Hypothesis.