Discussion Paper No. 640

BORROWING CONSTRAINTS AND
CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR IN JAPAN

Midori Wakabayashi
andCharles Yuji Horioka

August 2005

The Institute of Social and Economic Research
Osaka University
6-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan

Borrowing Constraints and Consumption Behavior in Japan∗
Midori Wakabayashi+College of Economics, Osaka Prefecture University
andCharles Yuji Horioka
Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University

Abstract: In this paper, we use Japanese micro data to examine what characteristics
borrowing-constrained households have and whether borrowing constraints have an important
influence on household consumption behavior.

We identify borrowing-constrained households

using three different indicators, some of which are unique to our data source, and find that thecharacteristics of households that are likely to be borrowing-constrained differ depending on
which of the three indicators we use.

We also find that changes in current income have apositive and significant impact on changes in consumption in the case of households that arelikely to be borrowing-constrained but not in the case of households that are unlikely to beborrowing-constrained.

This result suggests that borrowing constraints have an important

influence on household consumption behavior and that the presence of borrowing constraints is
one explanation for why the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis does not hold in the realworld.

∗

We would like to thank Daiji Kawaguchi, Yuji Kojima, Colin McKenzie, Yasuyuki Sawada, Shizuka
Sekita, Wako Watanabe, Junmin Wan, the members of Horioka’s graduate seminar, and seminar
participants at Keio University, the Central Council for Financial Services Information, and the Japanese
Economic Association meeting of June 2005 for their helpful comments and discussions. This paper was
prepared under the supervision of Wataru Suzuki, Associate Professor, Tokyo Gakugei University. We
are grateful to the Central Council for Financial Services Information for making these data available to us,
and we are especially grateful to Yayoi Abe of the Central Council for Financial Services Information.
+
Corresponding author: Midori Wakabayashi, mwaka@eco.osakafu-u.ac.jp, College of Economics, Osaka
Prefecture University, 1-1 Gakuen-cho, Sakai, Osaka, 599-8531, Japan Tel: 81-(0) 72-252-1161, ext. 2561
Fax: 81-(0) 72-254-9925

1. Introduction
According to the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis, an individual’s consumption
depends on her expectations concerning her permanent income rather than on her current income,and thus changes in the individual’s consumption from one period to the next should not dependon changes in her current income.

However, many empirical studies find that changes in an

individual’s current income do have a significant impact on changes in her consumption, contrary
to the life cycle-permanent hypothesis, and thus the validity of this hypothesis is now in doubt.
One of the most important assumptions of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis is
the assumption of perfect capital markets--that is, that individuals can borrow freely at the current
interest rate.

When capital markets are imperfect (for example, when the borrowing rate ishigher than the deposit rate or when the credit limit of individuals is low), individuals will not beable to borrow freely, and changes in an individual’s current income may have a significant
impact on changes in her consumption.

Thus, whether capital markets are perfect or imperfect

drastically alters theoretical predictions concerning individuals’ consumption behavior, and it isvery important to determine whether or not the assumption of perfect capital markets is valid.
In this paper, we examine what characteristics borrowing-constrained households have
and whether borrowing constraints have an important influence on household consumption
behavior using Japanese micro data from the 1994 “Public Opinion Survey on Household Savings
and Consumption (POSSC) (in Japanese, Chochiku to Shouhi ni kansuru Yoron Chousa)” which
was conducted by the Central Council for Savings Information (currently called the Central
Council for Financial Services Information).

We identify borrowing constrained households

using three indicators, some of which are unique to our data source.
The contributions of this paper are as follows: first, some of the indicators we use in our
analysis to identify borrowing-constrained households are unique.

1

Previous studies identify

borrowing-constrained households according to whether or not households possess credit cards(Shintani (1994) and Jappelli et al. (1998)) or whether or not households’ non-housing wealth isless than two months’ worth of income (Zeldes (1989) and Kohara and Horioka (1998, 2001)).
We use these same indicators but we also use information on whether or not households havecomplaints about the loan screening procedures of financial institutions to identify
borrowing-constrained households.

In particular, we define borrowing-constrained households

as households that want financial institutions to expand their low-interest personal loans andhouseholds that want financial institutions to show flexibility when screening loan applications
and to take account of applicants’ credentials and projects even though their collateral is limited.
The former are likely to have abandoned their plans to borrow because the interest rate was too
high, and the latter are likely to have had their loan applications turned down due to the lack ofcollateral, and thus both types of households are likely to be borrowing-constrained.

The

inclusion of a question about the reasons for consumer dissatisfaction with the loan screening
procedures of financial institutions in household surveys is unique, and our use of this question to
identify borrowing constrained households is also unique.
Second, the data source we use in our analysis contains various information on loans--forexample, new loans per year (flow data), loan repayments per year (flow data), and the total
amount of outstanding loans (stock data).

In particular, information is available on outstandingloans from each type of borrower--not only from financial institutions but also from money lendercompanies (consumer credit companies (in Japanese, sarakin) and pawnshops), one’s employer,
and relatives and acquaintances.

Thus, the data source we use in our analysis is well-suited foran analysis of borrowing constraints. .
To preview our main findings, our results show that the characteristics ofborrowing-constrained households differ greatly depending on which indicator we use and that2

whether or not households have complaints about the loan screening procedures of financial
institutions and whether or not households’ non-housing wealth is less than two months’ worth ofincome appear to be far better indicators than whether or not households are using credit cards.
We also find that changes in the current income of households that are likely to beborrowing-constrained have a positive and significant impact on changes in their consumption inalmost all cases, whereas changes in the income of households that are unlikely to beborrowing-constrained do not have a significant impact on changes in their consumption in any
case.

These results suggest that borrowing constraints have an important influence on household

consumption behavior and that the presence of borrowing constraints is one explanation for why
the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis does not hold in the real world.
This paper is organized as follows:

In Section 2, we conduct a theoretical analysis ofborrowing constraints and their impact on consumption behavior and survey previous studies, inSection 3, we describe the data source and variable definitions, in Section 4, we present somedescriptive statistics and cross tabulations, in Section 5, we describe the estimation model andestimation method, in Section 6, we present our estimation results, and Section 7 concludes.

2. Theoretical Considerations and Previous Research
2.1 Theoretical Considerations
In this subsection, we conduct a theoretical analysis of borrowing constraints and show
why an individual’s consumption behavior will differ depending on whether or not she isborrowing-constrained using a two-period model (this exposition is based on Ogawa and Horioka(1996)).1

1

In this theoretical model, we assume for the sake of simplicity that the individual will borrow only when
she has no saving. This is an extreme assumption, and as a matter of fact, the proportion of individuals
who have some loans but no savings is only 4.88% (206 out of 4225 observations).

3

Look at Figure 1.

Ct is the income of the individual at time t (t=1, 2), yt is the income of

the individual at time t (t=1, 2), and r is the interest rate.
hold any assets at the beginning of the first period.

We assume that the individual does not

First, if the borrowing rate is the same as

the deposit rate, and if the individual can borrow freely at the current interest rate, then the

individual’s budget constraint is the straight line AD  C1 +C2y 
= y1 + 2  , and the
1+ r
1+ r 

individual chooses the point E （C1 *, C2*）, where an indifference curve is tangent to the budget
constraint.

In this case, the individual borrows (C1 – y1) because the consumption level in thefirst period is higher than the income level in the first period.
Next, let us consider the case in which the borrowing rate is higher than the deposit rate,
which is a type of borrowing constraint.

In this case, the budget constraint of the individual isrepresented by the kinked line AFD (kink at F): to the left of C1 = y1, the budget constraint is theline segment AF  C1 +C2y 
= y1 + 2  , whereas to the right of C1 = y1, the budget constraint
1+ r
1+ r 

C2y = y1 + 2  . The individual maximizes her utility subject
1 + r1
1 + r1 to this budget constraint.2

As Figure 1 is drawn, the individual attains maximum utility (U2) at F

（y1, y2） (the kink point).

In this case, the individual consumes all of her income in each period,is the line segment FB  C1 +and thus the individual’s saving is zero.

Thus, the presence of a borrowing constraint

characterized by a borrowing rate that exceeds the deposit rate lowers the utility level of theindividual from U1 to U2.
Consider the case in which the individual’s income in period 1 increases from y1 to y11.
The budget line of an individual who is not borrowing-constrained shifts from the line AD to theline GH, whereas that of an individual who is borrowing-constrained shifts from the kinked line2

This same figure can be used to analyze the case in which the individual cannot borrow at all. In thiscase, the budget line will also be kinked at point K, but the segment FB will be vertical.

4

AFB to the kinked line GKI.

The former attains maximum utility (U3) at J (C11, C21), whereas

the latter attains maximum utility (U4) at K (y11, y2). K indicates that the consumption level ofthe individual who is borrowing constrained is y11, which implies, as before, that she consumes allof her income in each period and thus that she increases her first-period consumption by the fullamount of the increase in her first-period income.

Thus, changes in the individual’s

consumption do not coincide with changes in her income in the former case (unconstrained
individuals) whereas they do coincide with changes in her income in the latter case(borrowing-constrained individuals).3

2. 2 Previous Research
In this subsection, we survey the previous literature on the relationship between borrowing
constraints and household consumption.

A large number of detailed studies have been

conducted on this topic using data for countries other than Japan (for example, Hayashi (1985),
Zeldes (1989), Jappelli (1990), Runkle (1991), Jappelli, et al. (1998), and Kang and Sawada(2005); see Hayashi (1987) for a survey).
In one of the most seminal studies of whether borrowing constraints are present, Zeldes(1989) tests the permanent income hypothesis against the alternative hypothesis that consumers
optimize subject to a well-specified sequence of liquidity constraints using data from the Panel
Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).

He splits the sample into two groups on the basis of theratio of non-housing wealth to income on the grounds that observations with low ratios are likely
to be borrowing-constrained, whereas those with high ratios are unlikely to beborrowing-constrained.

He finds that the results are generally, but not completely, supportive of3

If the magnitude of the increase in income is large, the budget constraint might shift from the kinked line
AFD to the straight line GH (rather than the kinked line GKI). In this case, the individual becomes
unconstrained.

5the view that liquidity constraints have an important influence on people’s consumption.
However, as Jappelli (1990) points out, the main limitation of Zeldes (1989) and other previous
studies is that borrowing-constrained consumers are not observable directly and have to be
identified via indirect evidence--for example, on the basis of the ratio of non-housing wealth toincome.

By contrast, the 1983 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), which Jappelli (1990) uses

in his analysis, provides direct information on borrowing constraints (i.e., information on whether
households’ requests for credit have been rejected by financial intermediaries), and thus these data
can be used to analyze the impact of credit market imperfections and personal characteristics onborrowing constraints.

Jappelli (1990) finds that about 19.0 percent of households are rationed

in the credit market and also finds that younger families with low levels of wealth and saving are
more likely to be borrowing-constrained.

Jappelli (1990) cannot analyze the relationshipbetween borrowing constraints and household consumption behavior because the SCF does notcollect information on people’s consumption, but Jappelli et al. (1998) link the SCF and PSID
data and test for the presence of borrowing constraints using the following two-step procedure:
first, they use the direct information on borrowing constraints from the SCF to analyze thedeterminants of the probability of being borrowing-constrained.

Second, they estimate aswitching regression model of the Euler equation combining data from the SCF and PSID andusing a two-sample instrumental-variables technique.

They find that the excess sensitivity of

consumption associated with the possibility of being borrowing-constrained is stronger in the caseof their methodology than in the case of the sample splitting approach.

Kang and Sawada(2005) examine how the credit crunch in Korea affected households’ welfare in 1997 and 1998
using a switching regression approach and data from the Korean Household Panel Survey andfind that the standard consumption Euler equation, a necessary condition of the life-cycle
permanent income hypothesis, does not hold because of binding credit constraints.

6

Many studies have been conducted of whether the presence of borrowing constraints
affects household consumption in Japan as well (for example, Ogawa (1990), Shintani (1994),
Kohara and Horioka (1998, 2001), and Sawada et al. (2004)), but most of these studies analyze
the relationship between borrowing constraints and the level of consumption rather than thechange therein.

For example, Shintani (1994) analyzes whether the presence of borrowing

constraints affects household consumption using the 1989 and 1990 data from the “Nikkei-Needs
RADAR Survey on Financial Behavior (RADAR),” conducted by the Data Bank Bureau of
Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc., and finds that a significant fraction of households areborrowing-constrained and that, if borrowing constraints were to be lifted, aggregate consumption
would increase 7% in 1989 and 5% in 1990.

Kohara and Horioka (1998) use 1993-97 data fromthe “Japanese Panel Survey of Consumers (JPSC),” conducted by the Institute for Household
Economy, which collects direct information on borrowing constraints (the same question as in theSCF) and find that eight percent of households are borrowing-constrained.

They also estimate

the consumption function of borrowing-constrained households using a sample selection modeland find that the income of borrowing-constrained households has little impact on theirconsumption.

Kohara and Horioka (2001) and Sawada et al. (2004) are the only studies thatanalyze the relationship between borrowing constraints and changes in the household’s
consumption.

Kohara and Horioka (2001) analyze data from the JPSC and find that eightpercent of households are borrowing-constrained and that borrowing constraints do not explain
why the Euler equation does not hold.

Sawada et al. (2004) estimate the augmented Euler

equation using data from the JPSC and Amemiya’s (1985) Type 5 Tobit model and find that theirresults reject the standard consumption Euler equation, a necessary condition of the life-cycle
permanent income hypothesis.

They also find using data for the 1993-99 period that the credit

crunch became especially serious after 1997.

7

3. Data
3.1 The Data Source
In this subsection, we describe the data source we use in our analysis.

We use micro datafrom the 1994 “Public Opinion Survey on Household Savings and Consumption (POSSC) (inJapanese, Chochiku to Shouhi ni kansuru Yoron Chousa)” which was conducted by the Central
Council for Savings Information (currently called the Central Council for Financial Services
Information).

This survey has been conducted once a year since 1953 and collects various

information on respondents’ behavior--for example, their income, consumption, saving, portfolio
choice, lifetime planning, the extent of their knowledge about the financial environment, etc.

In

the 1994 survey, a stratified two-stage random sample of 6,000 households with at least two
members was surveyed using the drop-off, pick-up method, resulting in 4,225 responses (aresponse rate of 70.4%).
There are at least three advantages to using these data in our analysis.

First, we can use

three indicators to identify borrowing-constrained households, some of which are unique to ourdata source (see the introduction for more details).

Second, this survey collects information not

only on the levels of various variables (for example, living expenses, saving, and annual income)but also on the change therein.

Thus, we can use the data from this survey as panel data eventhough the survey is a cross section survey.

Third, the data we use in our analysis contains

various information on loans--for example, new loans per year, loan repayments per year (flowdata), and the total amount of outstanding loans (stock data).

In particular, information isavailable on outstanding loans from each type of borrower (government housing loan financial
institutions, other financial institutions (banks, cooperative banks (in Japanese, Shinkin andShinkumi), industrial banks, agricultural and fishery banks, post offices, insurance companies, and8housing loan financial institutions), sales companies and credit card companies, money lendercompanies (consumer credit companies (in Japanese, Sarakin) and pawnshops), employers, andrelatives and acquaintances, six types of borrowers in total) and on outstanding loans byborrowing motive (housing loans, unspecified loans (in Japanese, free loans), and educationalloans, three motives in total).

We use data from the 1994 survey because it is the most recent

survey to collect information on the usage of credit cards, which is needed for one of the methods
we use to identify borrowing-constrained households.

We dropped all observations for which allof the necessary information is not available, which reduced the number of observations from
4,225 to 1,777.

3.2 Three indicators for the presence of borrowing constraints
The POSSC collects information on three indicators that can be used to identify
borrowing-constrained households, and in this subsection we discuss these indicators.

Onequestion the POSSC asks is the following:
1. What complaints the respondent has about the loan screening procedures of financial
institutions
Question: Do you have any complaints about the services of financial institutions, or do
you desire any improvements in these institutions?

There are 13 responses to this question and two of them can be used to identify
borrowing-constrained households:(a) Financial institutions should expand their low-interest personal loans.
(b) Financial institutions should show flexibility when screening loan applications and takeaccount of applicants’ credentials and projects even though their collateral is limited.

9With respect to response (a), if financial institutions offered lower interest rates,
respondents would presumably have taken out loans from these institutions, and they havepresumably abandoned their plans to borrow because interest rates were too high.

Thus, we cansay that respondents choosing response (a) are likely to be borrowing-constrained.

With

respect to response (b), respondents have presumably had their loan applications turned down due
to the lack of collateral,.and if financial institutions had not turned down their loan applications,they would presumably have taken out loans from these institutions.

Thus, we can say that

respondents choosing response (b) are likely to be borrowing-constrained.

In our analysis, we

assume that respondents are likely to be borrowing-constrained if they picked one or both of these
responses.4(2) Whether or not the respondent uses credit cards
Jappelli et al. (1998) classify as borrowing-constrained households that have neither acredit card nor a credit line.

They explain that even households whose loan applications wereturned down may not be truly constrained because they can borrow at least some amount if they
possess credit cards.

The survey we use in our analysis asks whether or not households areusing credit cards, so we use this information as a second indicator in our analysis.
When individuals apply for credit cards, credit card companies request extensive
information on applicants’ occupations, incomes, loans, etc., in order to determine whether or not
to grant the individual a credit card and in order to determine the individual’s credit limit.
Individual can be regarded as being borrowing-constrained if their credit card applications weredenied or if the credit limit is too low.
The POSSC asks the following question relating to the use of credit cards:
4

The proportion of respondents who chose response (a) is 19%, the proportion who chose response(b) is 13%, and the proportion who chose both responses is 4.5 %.
10

Question: Is your household using credit cards?
(a) Yes, we are using credit cards.
(b) No, we are not using credit cards.
In our analysis, we assume that respondents are likely to be borrowing-constrained if theychoose response (b).5(3) Zeldes’ (1989) indicator -- the ratio of non-housing wealth to monthly income
Zeldes (1989) splits his sample into two groups on the basis of the ratio of wealth tomonthly income.

In particular, in method (i), he assumes that households whose estimatednon-housing wealth is less than two months’ worth of income are likely to beborrowing-constrained, whereas all other households are unlikely to be borrowing-constrained; inmethod (ii), he assumes that households whose saving is zero or whose estimated non-housing
wealth is zero are likely to be borrowing-constrained, whereas those whose estimatednon-housing wealth is at least six months’ worth of income are unlikely to beborrowing-constrained; and in method (iii), he assumes that households whose estimated total
wealth (including housing equity) is less than two months’ worth of income are likely to beborrowing-constrained, whereas all other households are unlikely to be borrowing-constrained.
Since Zeldes seems to favor method (i) and devotes most of his discussion to it, we also use thisindicator.

Our detailed calculation method is as follows: first, we calculate non-housing wealthas the sum of bank deposits and postal savings, financial trusts, loan trusts, equities, bonds,
investment trusts, property formation saving, and other financial products (not including life
insurance, individual pensions, and accident insurance).

Second, since there is no informationon the amount of monthly income in the survey we use, we calculate monthly income by dividing
5

In the survey from which this question is taken, households that have credit cards but do not use
them answer (b) to this question.
11

yearly income by 12.6

4. Descriptive Statistics
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
In this subsection, we present the main descriptive statistics for all households and forhouseholds that are likely to be borrowing-constrained.

We discuss our results for each of thethree indicators we use to identify borrowing-constrained households (see the introduction andsection 3).
First, we compare the descriptive statistics for the subsample of households that havecomplaints about the loan screening procedures of financial institutions (hereafter abbreviated as“households that have complaints”) (the first indicator) with those for all households. The
proportion of respondents who have complaints is 27.7% (493/1777), and two interesting patterns
emerge: first, the average age of the household head is 46.8 in the case of households that havecomplaints, which is about three years younger than that of all households.
that have complaints have more loans than all households.

Second, households

For example, in the case ofhouseholds that have complaints, the proportion of households that have loans outstanding is
60.2%, which is about 16 percentage points higher than in the case of all households.

Moreover,the average amount of new loans per year is about 540,000 yen in the case of households that6

We also tried other indicators that are combinations of these three indicators (for example, (a)households that have complaints about the loan screening procedures of financial institutions and are
not using credit cards (13.5% (239 out of 1777 observations)), or (b) households that have complaints
and households whose non-housing wealth is less than two months’ worth of income (6.5% (116 out of
1777 observations)), etc. We do not present the results here because the characteristics of households
that are likely to be borrowing-constrained differ depending on which of the three indicators we use(in particular, the characteristics of non-credit card users are very different from those of households
who are likely to be borrowing-constrained according to the other two criteria) (see sections 4 and 5
for details).
For example, the characteristics of households that are likely to beborrowing-constrained according to indicator (b) are similar to those of households that havecomplaints, whereas those of households that are borrowing-constrained according to indicator (a)escape characterization..
12

have complaints, which is about 200,000 yen (60%) higher than in the case of all households; theaverage amount of loan repayments per year is 710,000 yen in the case of households that havecomplaints, which is about 200,000 yen (39%) higher than in the case of all households; and thetotal amount of outstanding loans is 6.4 million yen in the case of households that havecomplaints, which is about 2.1 million yen (50%) higher than in the case of all households.
Furthermore, the average amounts of loans from each type of borrower are almost always higher
in the case of households that have complaints than in the case of all households (except in thecase of loans from relatives and acquaintances).

A closer look at the results by type of borrower

show that the average amount of loans from government housing loan financial institutions hardly
differs at all according to whether or not households have complaints, whereas the averageamounts of loans from sales companies and credit card companies and money lender companies
are much higher in the case of households that have complaints than in the case of all households:
for example, the average amount of loans from sales companies and credit card companies is twotimes higher and the average amount of loans from money lender companies is three times higher
in the case of households that have complaints than in the case of all households.

These findings

suggest that households that have complaints have more loans, especially unspecified loans, than
all households, suggesting that these households have complaints about the loan screening
procedures of financial institutions because they already have considerable outstanding loans andhence are unable to borrow more from financial intermediaries.
Second, we compare the descriptive statistics for households that are not using credit
cards (hereafter referred to as “non-credit card users”) (the second indicator) with those for all
households.

The proportion of non-credit card users is 57.8% (1027/1777), and thecharacteristics of non-credit card users are very different from those of households that havecomplaints.

First, non-credit card users have fewer loans than all households, whereas

13households that have complaints have more loans than all households.

For example, in the caseof non-credit card users, the proportion of households that have loans outstanding is 37%, theaverage amount of new loans per year is about 310,000 yen, and the average amount of loan
repayments per year is about 410,000 yen, and all of these amounts are much lower than both thecase of households that have complaints and the case of all households.

On the other hand, theaverage amount of loans from relatives and acquaintances is 20,000 yen (31%) higher in the caseof households that are not using credit cards than in the case of all households, which suggests thepossibility that these households have no other choice but to borrow money from relatives andacquaintances because they are unable to borrow from financial institutions.
Finally, I compare the descriptive statistics of households whose non-housing wealth isless than two months’ worth of income (hereafter abbreviated as “low-ratio households”) withthose of all households.7

The proportion of low-ratio households is 15% (267/1777), suggestingthat these households are much fewer in Japan compared to the U.S.8

The average yearly

income of low-ratio households is 5.8 million yen, which is almost the same as that of allhouseholds, whereas the average non-housing wealth of low-ratio households is 0.34 million yen,which is far lower than in the case of all households.

The characteristics of low-ratio households

are similar to those of households that have complaints.

For example, in the case of low-ratio

households, the average amount of new loans per year is about 690,000 yen, the average amountof loan repayments per year is about 760,000 yen, and the total amount of outstanding loans isabout 6.7 million yen, and all of these amounts are the highest of any category.

7

In addition,

We also tried dividing the sample according to whether or not households’ non-housing wealth isless than three, four, and six months’ worth of income because households’ non-housing wealth ismuch higher in Japan than it is in the U.S., but we do not present the results here because they were
not significantly different from the results based on two months’ worth of income. The proportion ofhouseholds whose non-housing wealth is less than three, four, and six months’ worth of income is20.3% (361/1777), 26.2% (467/1777), and 36.2% (644/1777), respectively.
8
Zeldes (1989) finds that the proportion of low-ratio households is 67% using data from the PSID,
and Jappelli et al. (1998) find that the proportion thereof is 62.1% using data from the SCF.
14

loans from sales companies and credit card companies and loans from money lender companies
are much higher in the case of low-ratio households than in the case of all households.
Thus, we find that the characteristics of households that are likely to beborrowing-constrained differ depending on which of the three indicators we use.

4.2 The relationship between consumption changes and income changes--discussion using
cross-tabulations
In this subsection, we discuss the relationship between consumption changes and incomechanges using cross-tabulations from the data source we use in our analysis. As we discussed in
the introduction and section 3, the data source we use in our analysis collects information onchanges in a household’s income and consumption even though the survey is a cross-section
survey.

The survey asks for disposable household income (after-tax household income) in theprevious year and in the year before that, whereas the question about the change in a household’s
consumption is as follows:
Question: Did you change your consumption expenditure last year compared to the year
before last?
The answers are as follows:(a) We increased our consumption expenditure.
(b) We did not change our consumption expenditure.
(c) We reduced our consumption expenditure.
We divide the sample into the following four groups using these questions: (1) the case inwhich there were changes in both income and consumption and the direction of the change
therein was the same: we consider households in this group to be more likely to beborrowing-constrained; (2) the case in which there is a change in the household’s income but no15

change in its consumption: in this case, changes in the household’s consumption do not dependon changes in its current income, and thus households in this group are behaving in accordancewith the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis (LC/PIH): (3) the case in which there is nochange in either consumption or income: households in this group might either beborrowing-constrained or behave in accordance with the LC/PIH; (4) all other cases--for example,
the case in which there are changes in both income and consumption but the direction of thechanges therein is opposite: households in this group are behaving irrationally.
As can be seen from Table 2-1, the proportion of those in the first group is 26.79%(4.90%+21.89%), that of those in the second group is 24.87% (7.37%+17.50%), that of those in
the third group is 17.56%, and that of those in the fourth group is 30.79%(4.56%+4.73%+7.43%+14.07%).
Let us look first at households that have complaints (Table 2-2).

40.5% of thesehouseholds are in the first group, and this figure is 13.7 percentage points higher than in the caseof all households, whereas 22.9% of households that have complaints are in the second group,
which is 2.0 percentage points lower than in the case of all households, suggesting thathouseholds that have complaints are more likely to be borrowing-constrained and less likely to be
behaving in accordance with the LC/PIH.

This suggests that this indicator might be appropriate.

Let us look next at non-credit card users (Table 2-3).
the first group, and 25.3% are in the second group.

24.7% of these households are in

These figures are roughly the same as thefigures for all households, which suggest that this indicator is not a very appropriate one.
Lastly, let us look at households whose non-housing wealth is less than two months’ worthof income (Table 2-4).

31.5% of these households are in the first group is, which is 4.7

percentage points higher than in the case of all households, whereas 15.0% are in the second
group, which is 9.9 percentage points lower than in the case of all households.

16

Thus, therelationship between consumption changes and income changes of low-ratio households is similar
to that of households that have complaints, suggesting that this indicator might also beappropriate.
Thus, we find using cross-tabluations that at least two of three indicators appear to beappropriate.

We conduct a more rigorous econometric analysis in the next section.

5. The Estimation ModelIn this section, we discuss the estimation model we used in our analysis

5.1 What characteristics do borrowing-constrained households have?
We use the following estimation model to test what characteristics borrowing-constrainedhouseholds have.

BRWCONS * = a1 × income + a 2 × incomesq + a3 × finasset + a 4 × finassetsq + a5 × income × finasset+ a 6 × debt + a 7 × age + a8 × agesq + a9 × age × income + a10 × age × finasset + a11 × familysize+ a12 × house + a13 × salaried + a14 × unemployed + a15 + u i = a ′Z i + u i
BRWCONS = 1 if BRWCONS * > 0
BRWCONS = 0 otherwise(1)

The dependent variable (BRWCONS) is a dummy variable that equals one for households
that are likely to be borrowing-constrained.

We use the aforementioned three indicators todetermine whether a household is likely to be borroing-constrained (see the introduction andsection 3).

The explanatory variables are household disposable income (income), its square(incomesq), non-housing wealth (finasset), its square (finassetsq), the cross-product of income
and non-housing wealth (income*finasset), a dummy variable for whether or not the householdowns its own home (house), three sets of variables that are related to outstanding loans ((a) the17total amount of outstanding loans, (b) outstanding loans from each type of borrower (six types ofborrowers in total) and (c) outstanding loans by borrowing motive (three motives in total)),demographic variables: the household head’s age (age), its square (agesq), the cross-product ofage and income and that of age and non-housing wealth (age*income and age*finasset), thenumber of family members (familysize), a dummy variable that equals one for households whose
head is a salaried worker and zero for households whose head is a self-employed worker or notworking (salaried), and a dummy variable that equals one for households whose head isunemployed and zero for households whose head is working or has already retired (unemployed).9In this analysis, the estimation method we use is probit because the dependent variable
BRWCONS is discrete.

5.2 Do borrowing constraints have an important influence on household consumption
behavior?
We use the following two equations to test whether the determinants of changes in ahousehold’s consumption (CDIF) differ significantly depending on whether or not it is likely to
be borrowing-constrained:10
Regime 1
CDIF * = b11 × idif + b12 × age + b13 × agesq + b14 + u1i= b1′ x1i + u1i iff a ′Z i ≥ −u i
(2 − 1)

Regime 2

9

We assumed that those not working and aged 59 or under are unemployed and that those notworking and aged 60 or older are retired.
10 We use the conventional approach of estimating log-linearized consumption Euler equations (that is,
we regress the change in a household’s current income on the change in its consumption) to analyze
the relationship between borrowing constraints and consumption behavior even though some authors(e.g., Carroll (2001) and Ludvigson and Paxson (2001)) have cast doubt on the validity of thisapproach.
18

CDIF * = b21 × idif + b22 × age + b23 × agesq + b24 + u 2i
= b2′ x 2i + u 2i iff a ′Z i < −u i (2 − 2)

CDIF = 0 if CDIF * ≤ 0CDIF = 1 if 0 < CDIF * ≤ µ
CDIF = 2 if µ < CDIF *We use equation (1) for the criterion function that determines which of these two
equations is applicable:
BRWCONS = 1 if a′Z i ≥ −ui= 0 otherwise(1)

The dependent variable (CDIF) of the model is a three-outcome ordered variable that
equals zero for households that reduced their consumption last year compared to the year before
last, one for households that did not change their consumption last year compared to the year
before last, and two for households that increased their consumption last year compared to theyear before last.

If households behave in accordance with the life cycle model, changes in thehousehold’s consumption from one period to the next should not depend on changes in its currentincome for the last year  (the rate of change of income
 income for the year before last year  income, so idif  = lnfrom the year before last to last year) should not have any impact on CDIF.

If, however,households are borrowing constrained, idif should have a positive and significant effect on CDIF.
We also include variables such as household head’s age (age) and its square (agesq) to proxy forchanges in preferences over the life cycle.
We use an ordered response model with a switching regression assuming that ui iscorrelated with u1i and u 2i .

That is, we estimate b1 , b2 using the following response

probabilities.11

Φ(h, k , ρ ) is a joint cumulative bivariate normal distribution of the correlation coefficient ρ ,cumulated over the interval ( −∞, h] × ( −∞, k ] :1119

The conditional probabilities of equation (2-1) are:

 P (CDIF = 0 BRWCONS = 1, Z ) = Φ (−b1′x1 , a ′Z , ρ ) P (CDIF = 1 BRWCONS = 1, Z )= Φ (−b1′x1 + µ1 , a ′Z , ρ )) − Φ (−b1′x1 , a′Z , ρ ) P (CDIF = 2 BRWCONS = 1, Z ) = 1 − Φ (−b′x + µ , a ′Z , ρ )1 11Similarly, the conditional probabilities of equation (2-2) are:

 P (CDIF = 0 BRWCONS = 0, Z ) = Φ (−b2′ x2 ,− a′Z , ρ ) P (CDIF = 1 BRWCONS = 0, Z )= Φ (−b2′ x2 + µ 2 ,−a ′Z , ρ ) − Φ (−b2′ x2 ,−a ′Z , ρ ) P (CDIF = 2 BRWCONS = 0, Z ) = 1 − Φ (−b′ x + µ ,− a ′Z , ρ )
2 2
2


.

ρ = Corr (u i , u iN ) N = 1,2
and thus the likelihood function for this model is L = Φ (−b1′ x1 ,− a ′Z , ρ1 ) D10 =1 [Φ (−b2′ x 2 + µ 2 ,− a ′Z , ρ1 ) − Φ ( −b2′ x 2 ,− a ′Z , ρ1 )]D11 =1

D12 =1Φ (−b2′ x 2 ,− a ′Z , ρ 2 ) D00 =1
[1 − Φ (−b2′ x 2 + µ 2 ,− a ′Z , ρ1 )]
D01 =1[1 − Φ (−b2′ x 2 + µ 2 ,−a ′Z , ρ 2 )]D02 =1
[Φ (−b2′ x 2 + µ 2 ,− a ′Z , ρ 2 ) − Φ (−b2′ x 2 ,− a ′Z , ρ 2 )]
 D10 = 1 if BRWCONS = 1 and CDIF = 0 and zero otherwise D11 = 1 if BRWCONS = 1 and CDIF = 1 and zero otherwise
 D12 = 1 if BRWCONS = 1 and CDIF = 2 and zero otherwise D00 = 1 if BRWCONS = 0 and CDIF = 0 and zero otherwise
 D01 = 1 if BRWCONS = 0 and CDIF = 1 and zero otherwise D02 = 1 if BRWCONS = 0 and CDIF = 2 and zero otherwise

6. Estimation Results
6.1 What characteristics do borrowing-constrained households have?
In this subsection, we present our estimation results concerning the characteristics ofhouseholds that are likely to be borrowing-constrained.

Φ (h, k , ρ ) =

h k

1



1

We discuss our results for each of the∫ ∫ exp− 2(1 − ρ ) ( x − 2 ρx x + x )dx dx
2π 1 − ρ
2

2

2
1

1 2

−∞−∞

20

2
2

1

2

three indicators we use to identify borrowing-constrained (see the introduction and section 3).
Let us look first at the results from estimating equation (1) using the first indicator (Table
3-(1), columns (a), (b), and (c)).

First, the coefficient of income (household disposable income)is negative and marginally significant in every case, meaning that the lower a household’s
disposable income is, the higher is the probability of having loan applications turned down, whichis consistent with our expectations. The coefficient of finasset (non-housing wealth) is not
significant in any of the three cases, which is contrary to expectation, whereas the coefficient ofhouse (a dummy variable for whether or not the household owns its own home), which is a proxyfor real assets, is negative and significant in almost every case, suggesting that the higher ahousehold‘s wealth is, the lower is its need for loans (the demand factor) and the lower is theprobability of having its loan application turned down (the supply factor), which is consistent
with our expectations.

The coefficient of age (the household head’s age) is positive andsignificant, which is contrary to expectation because borrowing constraints are more important foryounger families due to supply side adverse selection.

In addition, we use the following threesets of variables that pertain to outstanding loans: (a) the total amount of outstanding loans, (b)outstanding loans from each type of borrower (six types of borrowers in total) and (c) outstandingloans by borrowing motive (three motives in total). We would expect that the higher outstandingloans are, the higher is the probability of having loan applications turned down (the supply factor),and thus we would expect all of the coefficients of variables pertaining to outstanding loans to bepositive.

Let us look first at the results using (a) the total amount of outstanding loans as an

explanatory variable.

The coefficient of the total amount of outstanding loans is positive andsignificant, suggesting that the higher the total amount of outstanding loans is, the more likely itis that the household has complaints about the loan screening procedures of financial institutions.
We look next at the results using (b) outstanding loans from each type of borrower as explanatory

21

variables.

The coefficient of loans from government housing loan financial institutions, loans

from other financial institutions, loans from sales companies and credit card companies, and loans
from money lender companies have a positive and significant effect on BRWCONS.

In addition,

the estimated value of the marginal effects of loans from sales companies and credit cardcompanies and that of loans from money lender companies are 0.81 and 4.78, respectively,
meaning that if loans from these institutions increase by 100,000 yen, the probability of being
borrowing- constrained increases by 0.8% and 4.9%, respectively.

Looking lastly at the results

using (c) outstanding loans by borrowing motive as explanatory variables, we find that not only
do all of the borrowing motives have positive and significant effects on BRWCONS but that theeffect of the total amount of unspecified loans thereon is much larger than that of the total amountof housing loans.
Looking next at the results from estimating equation (1) using the second indicator(Table 3-(2), columns (a), (b), and (c)), we find that the coefficient of income (household
disposable income) is negative and significant, as expected, whereas the coefficient of finasset ispositive and significant, contrary to expectation.

In addition, although the coefficients of theamount of outstanding loans from financial institutions and from sales companies and credit cardcompanies are negative and significant, contrary to expectation, we would like to focus on thecoefficient of loans from relatives and acquaintances, which is positive and significant. This
result might reflect the fact that non-credit card users may have abandoned their plans to borrowfrom sales companies and credit card companies and thus that they might have no other choice
but to borrow from relatives and acquaintances.
Finally, we look at the results from estimating equation (1) using the third indicator(Table 3-(3), columns (a), (b), and (c)) and find that the results are similar to the results using thefirst indicator.

For example, almost all of the coefficients of variable pertaining to outstanding

22

loans are positive and significant, suggesting that low-ratio households have a higher amount ofloans than other households.
Thus, the characteristics of households that are likely to be borrowing-constrained differ
depending on which of the three indicators we use.

That is, the characteristics of households

that have complaints and that of low-ratio households have a higher amount of outstanding loans,especially “unspecific” loans, than all households, whereas non-credit card users have a lower
amount of outstanding loans than all households except that they borrow more from relatives andacquaintances.
Finally, our results show that we need to exercise caution when selecting indicators for
identifying borrowing-constrained households because some indicators are better than others,with whether or not households are using credit cards being the most problematic.

Households

that are not using credit cards include not only households whose credit card applications weredenied but also those who did not apply for credit cards even though their applications would
have been approved and those who own but do not use credit cards because they dislike owning
and/or using them.12

In addition, elderly households might have a lower probability of not using

credit cards than younger households because the former might not be accustomed to using them.
This might be the reason why the average age of the household head is 52 years old in the case ofnon-credit card users, which is the highest age of any category. Similarly, households living inrural areas might have a higher probability of not using credit cards than households living inurban areas because credit cards are less widely accepted in rural areas than in urban areas.
In addition, let us look at Figures 2-1 and 2-2. These figures plot the probability of being
borrowing-constrained against current income keeping all other variables constant at their sample

12

We think that the reason why the POSSC has not asked the question about whether or nothouseholds are using credit cards since the 1995 survey is that almost all Japanese had credit cards by
then.
23

mean values (Jappelli (1990) uses the same method on U.S. data).

Looking first at Figure 2-1,

which is based on the first indicator (whether or not households have complaints), the probabilityof being borrowing constrained is a decreasing function of current income, which is consistent
with the presence of borrowing constraints (and also consistent with Jappelli’s (1990) findings
based on U.S. data), whereas in Figure 2-2, which is based on the second indicator (whether or
not households are using credit cards), the impact of current income on the probability of being
borrowing constrained is not clear, suggesting that whether or not households are using credit
cards is more problematic than the other two indicators.

The descriptive statistics also support

these results.

6.2 Do borrowing constraints have an important influence on household consumption
behavior?
In this subsection, we examine whether the determinants of changes in a household’s
consumption differ significantly depending on whether or not it is likely to beborrowing-constrained.
Table 4, (1-1) and (1-2) presents the results from estimating equations (2)-(1) and (2)-(2)using the first indicator (whether or not households have complaints about the loan screening
procedures of financial institutions) in the first step.

Looking at the impact of idif (the change inthe household’s income) on CDIF (the change in the household’s consumption), the coefficient of
idif is positive and significant at the 10% level only in the case of households that are likely to beborrowing-constrained and is insignificant in the case of households that are unlikely to beborrowing-constrained.

The derivatives of the three probabilities with respect to the change inincome are as follows:

24

∂P0
= −0.196 × 0.229 = −0.045
∂idif
∂P1
= (0.196 − 0.298) × 0.229 = −0.023
∂idif
∂P2
= 0.298 × 0.229 = 0.068∂idif(evaluated at − b1 x1 = −1.193 , µ1 − b1 x1 = 0.765) ; the predicted probabilities and densitiesare Φ (−1.193) = 0.116, Φ (0.675) = 0.778, φ (−1.193) = 0.196, φ (0.765) = 0.298 ,respectively).

This implies that, if the change in the household’s income increases by 1 percentage point, theprobability of the household decreasing its consumption decreases by 4.5 percentage points, theprobability of the household not changing its consumption increases by 2.3 percentage point, andthe probability of the household increasing its consumption increases by 6.8 percentage points.
We look next at the results using the second indicator (whether or not households areusing credit cards) in the first step and again find that the coefficient of idif is positive andsignificant only in the case of households that are likely to be borrowing-constrained and is not
significant in the case of households that are unlikely to be borrowing-constrained.

The

derivatives of the three probabilities with respect to the change in income are as follows:∂P0= −0.206 × 0.226 = −0.047
∂idif
∂P1
= (0.206 − 0.104) × 0.226 = 0.023
∂idif
∂P2
= 0.104 × 0.226 = 0.024∂idifmeaning that, for example, if the change in the household’s income increases by 1 percentage
point, the probability of the household decreasing its consumption decreases by 4.7 percentage
points, which is consistent with the presence of borrowing constraints.
Finally, we look at the results using the third indicator (whether or not households’
non-housing wealth is less than two months’ worth of income) in the first step.

25

We found thatchanges in the household’s income do not have any impact on changes in its consumption in thecase of households that are unlikely to be borrowing-constrained, as expected, whereas changes in
the household’s income do not have any impact on changes in its consumption in the case ofhouseholds that are likely to be borrowing constrained either, which is contrary to expectation.
To summarize our findings in this section, we find evidence that changes in the current
income of households that are likely to be borrowing-constrained have a positive and significant
impact on changes in their consumption (except in the case of low-ratio households), whereaschanges in the income of households that are unlikely to be borrowing-constrained do not have
any impact on changes in their consumption, suggesting that borrowing constraints have an
important influence on household consumption behavior.13

7. Conclusion
In this paper, we examined what characteristics borrowing-constrained households have
and whether borrowing constraints have an important influence on household consumption
behavior using Japanese micro data from the 1994 “Public Opinion Survey on Household Savings
and Consumption (POSSC).

We identified borrowing-constrained households using three

indicators, the data for some of which are unique to our data source.

We obtained the following

results: first, households that have complaints about the loan screening procedures of financial
institutions and those whose non-housing wealth is less than two months’ worth of income have a

13

We also tried conducting a similar analysis using data from the 2000 POSSC and found that theresults were not significantly different from the results using the 1994 POSSC. The reason why weused the 1994 POSSC is as follows: first, as we stated earlier, the POSSC has not asked the question
about whether or not households are using credit cards since the 1995 survey. Second, the POSSC
has asked only a question about the direction of change in a household’s income (which is similar tothe question about the change in a household’s consumption in the 1994 POSSC) since the 1995
survey. Third, the POSSC has not asked the question about the direction of changes in a household’s
consumption and income and has asked only a question about the direction of change in a household’ssaving since 2001.
26

higher amount of outstanding loans, especially “unspecific” loans, than all households.

Second,households that are not using credit cards have a smaller amount of outstanding loans than otherhouseholds except that they borrow more from their relatives and acquaintances.

Thus, thecharacteristics of borrowing-constrained households differ greatly depending on which indicator
we use, and whether or not households have complaints about the loan screening procedures offinancial institutions and whether or not households’ non-housing wealth is less than two months’
worth of income appear to be far better indicators than whether or not households are using credit
cards.
Third, we examined whether changes in the household’s consumption differ significantly
by whether or not it is borrowing-constrained and found that changes in the current income ofhouseholds that are likely to be borrowing-constrained have a positive and significant impact onchanges in their consumption in almost all cases, whereas changes in the current income ofhouseholds that are unlikely to be borrowing-constrained do not have a significant impact onchanges in their consumption in any case.

These results suggest that borrowing constraints havean important influence on household consumption behavior and that the presence of borrowing
constraints is one explanation for why the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis does not holdin the real world.
We turn finally to directions for further research.

First, the data source we used in our

analysis also collects information on changes in each household’s saving so we would also like toexamine whether changes in the household’s current income have an impact on changes in its
saving.

Second, Kohara and Horioka (1998, 2001) point out that one of the most appropriate

proxies for borrowing constraints is the household head’s educational attainment, but the data
source we use does not collect direct information thereon.

We tried using indirect information

on educational attainment in order to analyze the relationship between borrowing constraints and27the household head’s educational attainment, but we do not present the results here because
almost all of the coefficients were not significantly different from zero.

28

REFERENCES
Carroll, Christopher D. (2001), “Death to the Log-Linearized Consumption Euler
Equation! And Very Poor Health to the Second-Order Approximation),” Advances inMacroeconomics 1 (1), 1003-1039.
Greene, William H. (2002), ‘Econometric Analysis, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall.
Hayashi, Fumio. (1985), “The Effect of Liquidity Constraints on Consumption: A Cross
Sectional Analysis,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 100, pp.183-206.
Hayashi, Fumio (1987), “Tests for Liquidity Constraints: A Critical Survey and Some
New Observations,” in Truman Bewley, ed., Advances in Econometrics, vol. II, Cambridge
University Press, pp. 91-110.
Kohara, Miki, and Horioka, Charles Yuji (1998), “Kariire Seiyaku to Shouhi Koudou{Borrowing Constraints and Consumption Behavior}” in Y. Higuchi and M. Iwata, eds., Paneru
Deta karamita Gendai Josei {Contemporary Women as Seen from Panel Data}, Toyo Keizai
Shinpousha, Tokyo, pp. 225-258 (in Japanese).
Kohara, Miki, and Horioka, Charles Yuji (2001) “Do Borrowing Constraints Matter?”mimeo.
Jappelli, Tullio (1990), “Who Is Credit Constrained in the U.S. Economy?,” Quarterly
Journal of Economics 105, 220-234.
Jappelli, Tullio; Pischke, Jorn-Steffen; and Souleles, Nicholas S. (1998), “Testing for
Liquidity Constraints in Euler Equations with Complementary Data Sources,” Review of
Economics and Statistics 80 (2), 251-262.
Kang, Sung Jin, and Sawada, Yasuyuki (2005),“A Credit Crunch and Household

Welfare: The Case of the Korean Financial Crisis,” mimeo.
Ludvigson, Sydney, and Paxson, Christina H. (2001), “Approximation Bias in Linearized
Euler Equations,” Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (2), 242-256.

29

Maddala, G. S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics,
Cambridge University Press.
Modigliani, Franco, and Brumberg, Richard E. (1954)

Utility Analysis and theConsumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-Section data,

in K. K. Kurihara, ed., Post

Keynesian Economics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 388-436.
Nawata, Kazumitsu (1995), “Estimation of Sample-Selection Models by the Maximum
Likelihood Method,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 39, 299-303.
Ogawa, Kazuo (1990), “Cyclical Variations in Liquidity Constrained Consumers:
Evidence from Macro Data in Japan,” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 4,
173-193.
Ogawa,

Kazuo,

andHorioka,

CharlesYuji(1996),“Shouhi/Chochiku(Consumption/Saving)” in Kaizuka, K.; Kousai, Y.; and Nonaka, I., eds., Nihon Keizai Jiten(Encyclopedia on the Japanese Economy,) Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, Tokyo, pp. 965-980 (inJapanese).
Runkle, David E. (1991), “Liquidity Constraints and the Permanent Income Hypothesis:
Evidence from Panel Data,” Journal of Monetary Economics 27, 73-98.
Sawada, Yasuyuki; Ii, Masako; and Nawata; Kazumitsu (1994), “Credit Crunch in Japan:
An Augmented Euler Equation Approach by Using Type 5 Tobit Model,” mimeo.
Shintani, Mototsugu (1994), “Japanese Consumers and Liquidity Constraints: A Test
based on Credit Information,” Osaka Economic Paper. 44 (1), 41-56.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. (2002), “Econometric Analysis of Cross section and Panel Data,”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Zeldes, Stephen. P. (1989), Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An EmpiricalInvestigation, Journal of Political Economy, 97 (2), 305-34.

30

C2
U1

U4

U3

U2
G

A
y2

F

K
J (C11,C21)
E(C1*,C2*)

O

y1 B

H

y11 I D

C1

Figure 1. A Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Borrowing Constraints on Consumption

Behavior.

31

.4
.3
Pcomplaints
.2
.1
0
0

1000

2000
tenthousandyen

3000

4000

Figure 2-1. The Probability of Being Borrowing-Constrained using the First Indicator.

(Borrowing-constrained households are households that have complaints about the loan
screening procedures of financial institutions.)

32

.4
.35
Pnocredit
.3
.25
0

1000

2000
tenthousandyen

3000

4000

Figure 2-2. The Probability of Being Borrowing-Constrained using the Second Indicator.

(Borrowing-constrained households are households that are not using credit cards.)

33

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics (Means and Standard Deviations)(1) Households
that have(3) Households
complaints about
whose nonthe loan screening (2) Households housing wealth isprocedures ofthat are not usingl;ess than two
All Households
financialcredit cards
months’ worth of
Variable(1777)
institutions （493）
income（267）（1027）
Household head's age
49.59
46.75
51.80
45.97
(12.22)(10.73)(12.37)(11.34)
Family size

3.60
(1.30)

3.85(1.30)

3.54(1.36)

3.07(2.37)

Income in the previous year
(millions of yen)579.60(315.80)580.34(287.47)

539.17(296.95)

578.75(315.84)

Income in the year before last

5.796
(3.173)5.844(2.826)

5.401(2.849)5.682(3.131)

Financial assets

7.286(9.846)4.865(7.260)6.754(9.755)0.335(0.394)

New loans per year

0.332
(2.450)0.538(3.140)0.310(2.403)0.695(4.135)0.515(1.262)0.705(1.194)0.407(1.273)0.764(1.260)Consumption expenditure

4.745(2.707)4.781(2.728)4.495(2.542)4.643(2.493)

Total outstanding loans

4.245(8.699)6.362(10.962)3.389(7.277)

6.701(11.612)

2.189(5.578)2.888(6.297)1.817(4.739)3.228(7.187)1.515(5.676)2.802(8.161)

1.103(4.307)2.590(8.520)0.086(0.409)0.166(0.582)0.046(0.314)0.223(0.683)0.006(0.104)0.018(0.195)0.003(0.081)0.010(0.102)0.359(2.221)0.408(1.942)0.295(2.229)0.512(2.287)0.068(0.824)0.064(0.523)0.089(0.941)0.118(1.111)

Housing loans

3.779(8.401)

5.530(10.444)3.053(7.088)5.858(11.360)

Unspecified loans

0.350(1.746)0.660(2.670)0.256(1.562)0.622(2.642)

Repayment of outstanding loans
per year

Borrowing from government
housing loan finance institutions

Borrowing from financial
institutions (banks, post offices,
etc. )

Borrowing from sales
companies and credit cardcompanies

Borrowing from money lendercompanies

Borrowing from one's employer

Borrowing from relatives andacquaintances

34

The ratio of households that are
in debt
Homeownership ratio
Salaried household ratio
Unemployment ratio (those aged
under 60)

44.51
65.79
59.09

60.24
62.27
59.92

36.51
68.45
53.65

62.17
59.18
62.17

0.96

0.41

1.36

0.37

Source: The 1994 Public Opinion Survey on Household Savings and Consumption(in Japanese, Chochiku to Shouhi ni kansuru Yoron Chousa).
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.

35

Table 2: Changes in consumption and income(2-1) Full sample

IncomeConsumption
Decreased

Decreased

No change
Increased
Total(2-2) Households thathave complaints about
incomethe loan screening
procedures of financial
institutions （493）Consumption
Decreased
Decreased
No change
Increased
Total(2-3) Households that
Incomeare not using credit
cards （1,027）
Consumption
Decreased
Decreased
No change
Increased
Total(2-4) Households
whose non-housing
Incomewealth is less than twomonths' worth ofincome（267）Consumption
Decreased
Decreased
No change
IncreasedTotal

No change87(4.90)
131(7.37)
132(7.43)
350(19.70)

Increased
81(4.56)
312(17.56)250(14.07)643(36.18)

No change
33(13.36)35(7.10)
48(9.74)
116(23.53)

Increased
15(6.07)
63(12.78)65(13.18)143(29.01)

No change
52(5.06)
79(7.69)
76(7.40)
207(20.16)

Total

Increased

3670(28.34)176(35.70)247(50.10)493(100.00)

Total
47(4.58)
181(17.62)202(19.67)430(41.87)

Increased
13(4.87)
51(19.10)41(15.36)105(39.33)

252(14.18)754(42.43)771(43.39)1,777(100.00)

22(8.91)
78(15.82)
134(27.18)234(47.46)42(4.09)
210(20.45)138(13.44)390(37.97)

No change
14(5.24)
11(4.12)
22(8.24)
47(17.60)Total
84(4.73)
311(17.50)389(21.89)784(44.12)141(13.73)470(45.76)416(40.51)1027(100.00)

Total
16(5.99)
29(10.86)70(26.22)115(43.07)43(16.10)91(34.08)133(49.81)
267(100.00)

Table 3: What Characteristics Do Borrowing-Constrained Households Have?
(Estimated marginal effects from probit)
Dependent Variable(1)
Households
that havecomplaints
about the loan
screeningprocedures offinancial
institutions(10 million yen)a
Income-0.3493 *(0.2070)-0.0697(0.0611)-0.0805(0.0790)0.0161 ***(0.0060)-0.0175(0.0347)0.0699 **(0.013)

Incomesq
Finasset
Finassetsq
Income*Finasset
Borrowing(2)
Households
that are notusing credit
cards（1027）bc-0.3224(0.2105)-0.0713(0.0618)-0.0772(0.0796)0.0149 *(0.0060)-0.0115(0.0352)-0.3293(0.2063)-0.0585(0.0577)-0.0850(0.0786)
0.0152 **(0.0059)-0.0168(0.0346)a-0.6183 ***(0.2225)
0.1286 ***(0.0420)0.1635 **(0.0814)-0.0080 *(0.0070)-0.0621 *(0.0353)-0.0253(0.016)0.0397 **(0.020)0.1040 ***(0.0206)

from government housing loan
from financial institutions
from sales companies andcredit card companies
from money lender companies
from one's employer
acquaintancesb-0.6737 ***(0.2263)0.1366 ***(0.0426)0.1502 *(0.0820)-0.0062(0.0072)-0.0650 *(0.0359)-0.0165(0.0235)-0.0399 *(0.0238)

0.8122 ***-1.3311 ***(0.2606)
4.7851 *(2.9282)
0.0287(0.0512)-0.0858(0.1460)(0.3373)-1.5415(1.2227)0.0091(0.0536)
0.3221 *(0.1709)Age

0.0131 *(0.0071)

0.0132 *(0.0072)

0.0607 ***(0.014)0.2382 ***(0.0676)
0.0139 *(0.0072)

Agesq-0.0002 ***(0.0001)
0.0088 **(0.0040)-0.0005(0.0013)0.0193 **(0.0089)-0.0638 **(0.0278)-0.0002 ***(0.0001)
0.0080 **(0.0041)-0.0005(0.0013)0.0185 **(0.0090)-0.0447(0.0281)-0.0002 ***(0.0001)
0.0081 **(0.0040)-0.0004(0.0013)0.0185 **(0.0089)-0.0604 **(0.0279)0.0000(0.0001)
0.0030(0.0043)-0.0009(0.0013)0.0209 **(0.0104)
0.0095(0.0306)

0.0000(0.0001)
0.0038(0.0044)-0.0009(0.0014)0.0228 **(0.0105)-0.0051(0.0312)-0.0297-0.0173-0.0272-0.0412-0.0548 **(0.0238)(0.0240)(0.0238)(0.0266)(0.0269)

Housing loans
Unspecified loans

Age*Income
Age*Finasset
Family size+

Homeownership dummy

Salaried worker household+
dummy

0.0055(0.0080)

0.0071(0.0080)+

Unemployment dummy (those
aged under 60)-0.1303-0.1305-0.13210.08770.0901(0.0871)(0.0874)(0.0863)(0.1332)(0.1346)37

(3) Households whose
non-housing wealth isless than two months'
worth of income
（267）
a

c

b

c

-0.6323 ***(0.2230)
0.1259 ***(0.0421)0.1668 **(0.0817)-0.0074(0.0071)-0.0634 *(0.0354)0.0410 ***(0.0092)
0.0366 **(0.0143)0.0379 ***(0.0130)
0.7212 ***(0.1689)
0.1399(0.6760)
0.0341(0.0335)
0.0602(0.0865)-0.0174(0.016)-0.1326 *(0.0676)
0.0051(0.0080)0.0000(0.0001)
0.0033(0.0043)-0.0010(0.0014)0.0215 **(0.0104)
0.0052(0.0307)-0.0426(0.0266)
0.0897(0.1330)-0.0028(0.0051)0.0000(0.0001)-0.0036(0.0051)0.0000(0.0001)

0.0375 ***(0.0096)0.0923 **(0.0419)-0.0026(0.0051)0.0000(0.0001)

0.0178 ***(0.0068)-0.0416 **(0.0217)-0.0109(0.0182)-0.0661(0.0702)

0.0166 **(0.0166)-0.0316(0.0218)-0.0046(0.0182)-0.0713(0.0677)0.0175 **(0.0068)-0.0394 *(0.0217)-0.0107(0.0182)-0.0676(0.0693)38

Notes:*Significant at the 10% level, **significant at the 5% level, ***significant at the 1% level.
We use three indicators to define the dependent variable, which equals one for households that arelikely to be borrowing-constrained and zero otherwise.
The estimated marginal effect can be derived from the height of the normal density multiplied by thecoefficient of the explanatory variable.
(+) The marginal effect is for a discrete change in the dummy variable from 0 to 1.

39

Table 4: Borrowing Constraints and Consumption Behavior (N=1777)(1) Whether or not households have complaints about the loan screening procedures of financial institutions

Constrainedlnincomedif
Age
Agesq
Constant
Unconstrainedlnincomedif
Age
Agesq
Constant
mu1
mu2

Change in consumption
0.229 *
(0.136)-0.019(0.038)0.000(0.000)1.454(0.898)Change in consumption-0.0411(0.0565)-0.0113(0.0205)
0.0002(0.0002)-0.1064(0.5511)
1.9585 ***(0.2561)
11.5345

rho1

0.9969rho2-0.9220 ***(0.1199)

Mean of variable-0.005

Marginal effects in the case of contrained households-beta*xbar-1.1932
mu1-beta*xbar
0.765249.5912608.515
Decrease
No change
Increase

Estimated marginal effect-0.045dP0/dlnincomed-0.023dP1/dlnincomed
0.068
dP2/dlnincomed(2) Whether or not households are using credit cards

Constrainedlnincomedif
Age
Agesq
Constant
Unconstrainedlnincomedif
Age
Agesq
Constant
mu1
mu2
rho1
rho2

Change in consumption
0.226 **
(0.100)-0.009(0.027)0.000(0.000)1.398 **
(0.686)
Change in consumption-0.1913(0.1438)-0.0209(0.0411)0.0002(0.0004)
0.9164(1.2350)
2.7832(7.4703)20.5049(2576.1070)
0.9991 ***(0.0409)-0.1165(0.6981)

Mean of variable-0.005

Marginal effects in the case of constrained households-beta*xbar-1.1486
mu1-beta*xbar
1.634649.5912608.515

40

Decrease
No change
Increase

Estimated marginal effect-0.047dP0/dlnincomed
0.023
dP1/dlnincomed
0.024
dP2/dlnincomed(3) Whether or not households' non-housing wealth is less than two months' worth of income

Constrainedlnincomedif
Age
Agesq
Constant
Unconstrainedlnincomedif
Age
Agesq
Constant
mu1
mu2
rho1
rho2

Change in consumption-0.163(0.218)0.000(0.069)0.000(0.001)0.496(1.696)
Change in consumption
0.0920(0.0995)
0.0003(0.0256)0.0000(0.0003)
0.4967(0.9107)22.7334(208046.9000)
9.2475(788.7313)
0.0654

Mean of variable-0.00549.5912608.515-0.2535(0.7860)41