Agriculture Handbook No. 141 ;//

Distributed Lags and

Demand Analysis

for Agriniltiinil

and Other Commodities//

Agricultural Marketing Service

-li UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE -''/^

June 1958
PREFACE

This publication sxiinmarizes available literature on

the use of distributed lags in the analysis of demand

for individual commodities and contributes a substantial

amo\mt of new material to the problem of estimating

dynamic demand relationships. Although distributed lags

have been used in the analysis of some economic problems,

they have been used to date only rarely in connection

with demand analyses. These techniques appear to be

particiilarly useful in measuring long-r\in and short-run

demand functions. Several applied examples are discussed

in detail in this publication. These techniques are

currently being used by the Agricultural Marketing

Service in an analysis of the demand for textile products; results on this application will be reported in

later publications. In this report considerable

emphasis is placed on methodological aspects, in part

to call attention to problem areas. It is hoped that

this publication will result both in a stimulation of

additional research on methodology and in increased \

use of this technique in applied areas.

For sale by the Superintendent of Doc\;iments, U. S. Government Printing Office

ící^ashington(|25, D. C. - Price 60 cents
CONTENTS

Page

Summary 1

Introduction 1|.

Causes of distributed lags '. 5

Psychological 5

Technological 6

Institutional 6

Effects of uncertainty 7

Eiffpirical analyses in which distributed lags have been used 7

When no assiaaption is made as to the form of the distribution 8

When the general form of the distribution is assumed and

estimation is made of certain characteristics 9

Based on models of expectation . • ik

Models for generating distributed lags based on technological

or institutional rigidities * ik

Distinction between long- and short-run elasticities 15

Time paths followed in moving toward equilibrium I6

Difference or differential equations that characterize

alternative time paths 17

Derivation of the lag distribution assvmied by Koyck I8

Models based on uncertainty about the futiire 20

Definition of terms , 20

An indirect method for obtaining reduced equations 25

The multiple equation method of reduction 31

Separability of equations 35

Modifications when current price and income enter the

demand eqviations , 39

Models that involve both rigidities and uncertainty kl

When current price does not affect the long-nm equilibriimi demand k2

When current price does affect the longrrun equilibrium demand k6

Methods of statistical estimation kj

A method that makes direct use of equations that involve

distributed lags V...;. *. • • k8

A method that makes use of single reduced equations 57

A method that makes use of multiple reduced equations 62

Effects of serial correlation 75

Alternative cases 77

Alternative assumptions ¿2

Interdependency of variables within a system 82

Conditions which must be satisfied if the method of

least squares is used 82

An approach which can be used if the method of least squares

is not directly applicable 85

Demand for durable consumption goods and the distinction between

consumption and savings 86

An exaniple relating to automobiles 88

Conclusions 93

Friedman*s permanent income hypothesis and its implications

for demand analysis, 93

Theoretical formulation 93

Statistical specifications 96

Implications of Friedman * s hypothesis 103

Tests of the permanent income hypothesis IO9

Literature cited *. II6

Appendix 120
DISTRIBUTED lAGS AND DEMAWD MALYSIS FOR

AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER COMMODITIES

Marc Nerlove y

Agricultural Economic Statistician

Agricultural Marketing Service

SUMMARY

In economics, a cause often produces its effect only after a lapse of

time. For example, a drop in the price of potatoes in the fall cannot affect

potato acreage until the following spring, nor can it decrease potato production until the following fall. The lapse of time between a cause and its

effect is called a lag. The lag may be a specific time, say three months, or

one year. But in many cases, the effects of an economic cause are spread over

many months, or even many years. In such cases, we have a distributed lag.

Distributed lags with respect to variables that affect consumption may arise

for the following reasons: (l) Psychological, under which we include forces of

habit and assumptions on the part of consumers that changes may be only temporary; (2) technological, which include factors such as, in a general case,

lack of knowledge about possible substitutes or, in a specific case, the inability to increase greatly the use of frozen foods without first acquiring

adequate freezer storage space; (3) institutional, which include situations in

which certain contractual items of expenditure or savings may need to be

adjusted before shifts can be made in consumption patterns, and the fact that

some markets, particularly for durable goods, are imperfect in an economic

sense.

One way to measure the degree of lag with respect to a particular variable is to find by statistical analysis that distribution of lag which maximizes the effect of the causal factor. Empirical analyses based on this

approach have been run which (l) make no assumption as to the form of the

distribution of lag, (2) are designed to estimate certain characteristics of

an assxmied general form for the distribution, or (3) derive and statistically

fit a model based on the fundamental cause of the distributed lag but which

yield a specific distribution of lag only incidentally. Examples of each are

discussed in some detail in this report.

One way to formulate models for generating distributed lags is to assiame

that the lags arise chiefly because of technological and institutional rigidities. The traditional distinction between long- and short-run elasticities

rests largely on causes of this sort. Although observable points each lie on

a short-run curve, the coefficients of the long-run curve can be estimated if

the model is properly formulated. Relations between long- and short-run

demand curves depend chiefly on the path which observed consimiption would

follow if it moved directly toward its long-r"un equilibriimi level following an

initial change in a causal variable. The shape and form of such paths are

determined by the type of institutional and technological rigidities that

exist. Several alternative paths are described in this report in terms of

difference or differential equations.
- 2 -

Another way to formulate models that generate distributed lags is to

assume that technological and institutional rigidities are absent but that

uncertainty about the future exists, and that habit is a powerfxil force. Under

conditions of uncertainty, a change in price or income may be tho\aght of by

consvimers as divided into two components—one permanent and one transitory.

The permanent part changes expectations in all relevant future years, whereas

the transitory part changes expectations in only some future years, or perhaps

in none. The average level about which future prices or incomes are expected

to fluctuate is called the "expected normal;" this level is affected only by

that part of the initial change in a causal factor that is considered permanent. If forces of habit are strong, the effects of a change in current price

or income on consumer behavior are slight compared with the effects of a

change in the expected normal. Hence, models need to be formulated so as to

emphasize the effects of changes in the expected normal.

Hicks (18, p. 205) 1/ defines "the elasticity of^a particular person's

expectations of ttie price of a commodity x as the ratio of^jtíae proportional

rise îïr^îggecte^ of x to the pro|^prtimalT*iseTn^

price." The elasticity can flange between Ó and 1. 2/1^^ affect the

elasticity of expectations; some affect all commodities equally, whereas

others affect different commodities differently. Among the latter is the

typical variance of prices of the commodity. For any given commodity the

elasticity of expectations need not be stable over time, but models are simpler if we assume that it is stable. A number of applications based on this

assimiption are discussed. Frequently an equation that contains one or more

distributed lags can be reduced by algebraic manipulation to an eqiaation that

does not contain such lags. The reduced equation then can be fitted statistically and the results used to obtain certain characteristics of the lag. A

difficulty with this approach is that the number of variables added in the

reduced equation is greater than or equal to the square of the number of

variables with distributed lags that enter the initial equation. Thus the

method is not feasible when the initial equation contains more than two or

three variables with distributed lags.

In working with commodities that substitute for, or complement each other,

we generally are interested in a system of equations rather than a single

equation. Each equation frequently contains lagged values of the same variables. The multiple eqviation method of reduction of a demand equation which

involves distributed lags takes advantage of the existence of all of the interrelated equations. By way of contrast with the single equation method of

1/ Underlined numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited, page II6.

2/ That the elasticity lies between zero and one is not necessary to Hicks'

definition nor to much of the analysis contained in subsequent pages. The

chief justifications for assuming the elasticity to lie between zero and one

are: (l) Its interpretation as a proportion (see page 23); (2) mathematical

convenience; (3) empirical validity. The last is, of course, the most compelling. In all statistical investigations in which the elasticity of expectations has been estimated without restricting it to lie between zero and one,

it has been found to do so.
- 3 -

reduction described in the preceding paragraph, if each original demand equation contains n expected nonnal prices and expected normal income, each reduced demand equation in the multiple set includes, in addition to n + 1

current values of prices and income, n + 1 lagged values of the quantities

demanded and aggregate consiamption of all commodities. Thus, whereas the

single equation method leads to one reduced demand equation containing (n 4- l)

+ (n + 1)2 independent variables, the multiple equation method leads to n

reduced demand eq\aations each containing 2(n + 1) independent variables. For

statistical purposes, the latter are clearly preferable when n exceeds 1 or 2.

Some systems of demand eq\jiations are of such a nature as to be "separable" in

a mathematical sense defined in this paper. An example is a sysi^em containing

several demand equations and a consumption function; here we may (l) reduce

the whole system, including the consumption function or (2) solve the consumption function for expected income, substitute this into the demand equations,

and then reduce only the demand equations. This is the sense in which the

term "separable" is used.

Equations that contain distributed lags that are due only to technological or institutional rigidities can be reduced easily. Reduction becomes more

complex when the lags are due to uncertainty about the future, but a considerable degree of simplification may be obtained by the multiple equation method

of reduction. When the lags are due both to uncertainty and rigidities, in

general no simplification of reduction is possible. But if the distributions

of lag are of a special form, simple reduction is possible. Several examples

are discussed.

Statistical estimation of the coefficients in demand equations that contain distributed lags can be done theoretically in two ways—(l) by dealing

directly with the equation that involves the distributed lags, or (2) by using

one or more reduced equations. Maximum likelihood procedures under the first

approach are given and a likelihood ratio test is described. This approach

requires a large number of repeated steps; for this reason, it is called the

"iterative" method of estimation. In order to use the iterative method, the

unexplained residuals in each equation that contains a distributed lag must be

normally and independently distributed. If the lags arise solely because of

technological and institutional rigidities, this will be true only under

special conditions. If the lags are caused by uncertainty, problems of serial

correlation in the residuals do not arise but the iterative procedure is computationally feasible only in the simplest cases. Thus the iterative approach

can be used only under special circumstances.

If a distributed lag is due only to rigidities of a technological or institutional nature, the coefficients can be estimated easily by using a single

reduced equation fitted by least squares. Estimation becomes more complicated

if the lags are caused by uncertainty about the future. If three or more

variables with distributed lags are involved and we use the single-equation

method of reduction, the nuníber of variables in the reduced equation become^

so large as to make statistical fitting virtually impossible with time series

of normal length. Complications from serial correlation of the residuals also

enter. Only in the simplest of cases should the non-iterative method be based
. if -

on a single reduced equation- In using the multiple reduced equation

approach, we must assume that the distributions of lag for the same variable

in each of the equations is the same. If the multiple equation method can be

used, it is computationally much simpler than the single equation method.

In analyzing the demand for commodities in general, if anticipated distributed lags result from uncertainty about the future, we should specify a

system of equations before proceeding with any estimation. If the distributed

lags are believed to result only from technological or institutional rigidities, only a single demand equation for the particular commodity need be

specified.

In a concluding section, the permanent income hypothesis, advanced by

Friedman (l6), is discussed in some detail. Two empirical tests of this

hypothesis are given. Although a firm conclusion cannot be reached based on

these, they suggest that technological and institutional rigidities may play a

greater role in demand analysis than does imcertainty about the futiore. If

this is true, estimation of distributed lags by the methods discussed in this

paper is simplified.

INTRODUCTION

Irving Fisher (13) was the first to use and discuss the concept of a distributed lag. Although the idea that one economic variable depends on another

variable lagged in time is an old one, the use of lagged variables in empirical research has been restricted primarily to areas other than demand analysis.

Distributed lags arise in theory when any economic cause (for example, a

price change or an income change) produces its effect (for example, on the

quantity demanded) only after some lag in time; so that this effect is not

felt all at once, at a single point of time, but is distributed over a period

of time. Thus, when we say that the quantity of cigarettes demanded is a

fTonction of the price of cigarettes taken with a distributed lag, we mean,

essentially, that the full effects of a change in the price of cigarettes is

not felt immediately, and that only after some passage of time does the quantity of cigarettes demanded show the full effect of the change in the price of

cigarettes.

This example may be made more concrete: Let time be divided into discrete

periods and let q^ = the quantity demanded during period t, p^ = the price

during period t, Pt-i = '^^^ price diiring period t-1, and so on. Then, in line

with the above, q^ may be written as a function of past prices:

^t "^^ i*(Pt^ Pt-1> Pt-2^ •••) (l)

Suppose that a tax is levied which raises the price of the commodity by an

amount A p. 3/ Then, in period t+1, equation (l) yields

3/ We assume that the supply of the commodity is perfectly elastic.
....-Ao-

.'1 v^ "' - 5 -

In period t+2, we have

qt^2 = ^(Pt+2 + APvPt+l -^ AP> Pv Pt-1 •••) (3^

so that qt^p is not generally the same as qt+1 ^^^^ though no further change

in price has occurred. Thus, the effect of a price change may be distributed

over many periods of time.

CAUSES OF DISTRIBUTED LAGS

The economic variables which affect demand may do so with a distributed

lag for a variety of reasons. These reasons fall into three broad groups:

(1) Psychological, (2) technological and (3) institutional. Typically, some

conjunction of factors falling in all three groups operate to produce a distributed lag.

Psychological

Whether we consider the demand for individual commodities or consumption

expenditures as a whole, we can reasonably suppose that people are loath to

change their pattern of consumption or their level of living radically in

response to changes in prices or income. Two basic reasons cause this rigidity of behavior: (l) Habit is a powerful force; the process of change is an

activity to which disutility may be attached, particularly when the change

tends to resxat in a reduction in the standard of living. (2) Changes in

economic variables may be considered only temporary; hence, the disutility

involved in adjustment and readjustment may more than offset the utility to be

gained by maintaining a continuous position of equilibrium even at a higher

level of living. Consequently, habit and uncertainty about the future make

for rigidity in consumer behavior. If a change in price or income persists

for a sufficiently long period, consiamers may become convinced of its permanence and act accordingly..

Changes in total expenditures for consimiption in response to changes in

income may be considered from a slightly different approach. It is reasonable

to suppose that consimaers wish to even out their consumption to a certain extent over their "lifetimes,"or at least over the forseeable future. 4/ If this

is true, an individual consumer tends to save when his income is temporarily

high and to dissave when his income is temporarily low; his total consumption

during any period of time thus is related to his expected longer-term earnings, not to his current income. Consequently, total consumption expendit\ares

tend to be stable relative to current incomes, and a change in current income

tends to affect consxmaption only insofar as it affects consumers* notions of

their "lifetime" or "permanent" incomes. If these notions are relatively

4/ See Friedman (16, Chap. II) and Fisher (l4, ^-g. 13-1Ô, 231-262).
- 6 -

inelastic with respect to current income, changes in total consiuaption expenditures lag behind changes in current income, and this lag is likely to be of a

distributed nature for, if a change in income persists for a sixfficiently long

period, people come to believe in its permanence. If total consumption is related to income taken with a distributed lag, at least some individual items

must be also. 5/

Technological

The economic theory of the individual consiamer or family unit is similarto the theory of the individxxal firm: a firm maximizes profits subject to

various restraints and a consimier maximizes satisfaction or utility subject to

restraints. Just as a firm produces a product with fixed as well as variable

factors, so a consumer produces satisfaction with stocks of durable or semidurable goods as well as with goods of a more perishable nature. The existence

of consumption goods of a durable nature leads to a lag in the reactions of

consumers for technological reasons: the shift from one perishable commodity

to another may be delayed because of the existence of complementary goods of a

durable nature. For example, the introduction of frozen foods was probably

delayed because consumers did not have proper storage facilities. Manufacturers of refrigerators took time to recognize the need for larger freezer

compartments and to produce such refrigerators. Furthermore, consxamers took

time to adjust their stock of refrigerators, given the existence of those of

the older type.

The ability of consumers to substitute one commodity for another depends

on the passage of time for another reason—imperfect knowledge. A rise in the

price of one commodity may provide the incentive to consumers to substitute

others for it, but time may be required to discover what commodities may be

easily substituted and how to substitute them. Similarly, a fall in the price

of a commodity may lead to a desire, on the part of consxmiers, to substitute

it for another commodity, but time is required to make the relevant substitutions.

Institutional

Institutional factors may also produce a certain rigidity in consumer

behavior for the following reasons: (l) Many contractual items of expenditure

or saving exist, for example, insurance premlxmis, installment credit, and the

like. Given time, all these may be adjusted, but in the short run they may

cause consxmiers to adjust purchases less than they otherwise would.

(2) Markets for many goods are imperfect, and large costs to the consumer may

result from changes in the pattern of expenditure. For example, the

5/ In an empirical context, the accuracy of these statements depends upon

the distinction between savings and consumption. Purchases of some goods,

such as refrigerators or automobiles, reflect saving more than they do consumption. This problem is discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
- 7 -

secondhand market for many durable goods, say refrigerators, tejds to be imperfect, so that buyers and sellers have difficulty in getting together. Costs

involved in selling or negotiating for a sale may persuade a consumer to retain his old refrigerator longer than he would in a more perfect market.

The distinction between the various causes of distributed lags is never

clear-cut. In practice one must decide on the basis of available evidence

whether the behavior of the consumer is likely to be affected by one^or more

of these considerations; if so, a distributed lag might properly be introduced.

Effects of Uncertainty

When we discuss models leading to distributed lags, we condense the three

categories of causes into two categories. Even if no uncertainty about the

future exists, rigidities in consumer behavior might arise for all three types

of reasons, but the distributed lags in such a case might be quite different

from those arising in a world of uncertainty. A practical example of this

distinction is as follows: Suppose the Government announces a fixed price for

bread, higher than the current price, at which the Government is willing to

b\iy or sell bread in unlimited quantities. Contrast this with a more usual

case in our economy in which the price of bread rises because of a short wheat

crop. In each sittiation people tend to cons\jme less bread and, if the new

price persists, an equilibrium will eventually be reached. Even if the equilibrium position is the same in each case, the approach to equilibrium may be

quite different, since in one case the change in price may be considered permanent whereas in the other it may be considered temporary, at least for a

while.

In many practical uses to which demand analyses may be put, the distinction between lags in adjustment under more-or-less certain conditions and lags

under conditions of uncertainty is of great importance. The discussion beginning on page 1^ is therefore concentrated on this twofold distinction rather

than on the three categories discussed in preceding paragraphs.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSES IN WHICH DISTRIBOTED LAGS HAVE BEEN USED

According to Fisher (15, p. 323) the basic problem in applying the theory

of distributed lags "... is to find the 'best' distribution of lag, by which

is meant the distribution such that ... the total combined effect [of the

lagged values of the variable taken with a distributed lag] ... [has] the

highest possible correlation with the actual statistical series with which we

wish to compare it." That is, we wish to find that distribution of lag which

maximizes the explanation of "effect" by "cause" in a statistical sense.

This problem of finding the "best" distribution of lag may be attacked

in several ways: (l) We may make no assumption as to the form of the distribution; this approach is taken by Alt (2) and Tinbergen (31). (2) We may assume

a general form for the distribution of the lag and estimate certain of its
-8-

particular characteristics; this approach is taken by Fisher (13> 15) ^^^

Koyck (22) and is suggested by Alt (2). (3) We may develop a specific model

based on the considerations suggested in the preceding section; this model

yields a specific distribution of lag only incidentally. This approach is

examined further in the sections that begin on page 1^. Approaches (2) and

(3) do not yield the "best" explanation in a statistical sense, but they do

offer certain advantages in terms of ease of computation and interpretation.

When No Assxmption Is Made As To

the Form of the Distribution

Tinbergen (31) suggests that the typical form of a demand equation is

xt = a + boPt + ^iPt-1 + ••• = a + £ ^iPt-i W

i=0

where x^ is the quan,tity demanded in period t; p^, the price in period t;

Pt-1^ the price in t-1; and so on, and the bQ, bj^, •.. are constants. Let 63

be the short-run elasticity of demand (that is, the immediate effect of a one

percent change in price), and let €L ^^ ^^^ long-run elasticity of demand

(that is, the eventual effect of a one percent changé in price). Tinbergen

proposed to intei*pret the short-run elasticity as

«S = ^0 -|- (5)

and the long-run elasticity as

where (p, x) is the point on the demand fimction at which we wish to evaluate

the elasticity.

The method proposed by Tinbergen for estimating an equation such as (h)

involves no assimiption as to the relation among the b¿, that is, no assumption

regarding the distribution of the lag effect of past prices on the quantity

demanded. Tinbergen proposed to add lagged prices successively to the least

squares regression of quantity on price. This procedure stops when the signs

of the coefficients become erratic and cease to make sense. Such behavior of

the coefficients is usually a consequence of the intercorrelation of the

lagged explanatory variables. Sizable standard errors of the coefficients,

even where the signs of the coefficients have not yet become erratic, may suggest stopping the procedure at an earlier stage.
- 9 -

An example of this method is given by Alt (2, p. Il6). Let y-^ represent

fuel oil consumption in quarter t, and x^ represent new orders in quarter t;

Alt's calculations for the period 1930-39 are

y^ = Ô-37 r 0.171 x^ (Ta)

y^ = 8.27 4- 0.111 x^ + 0.064 x^^i (7b)

y^ = 8.27 + 0.109 x^ + 0.071 x^^i -0.005 x^^g ^'^^^

y^ = 8.32 + 0.108 x^ H- 0.063 x^.-L + 0.022 x^.g -0-020 x^.3 (7d)

Alt chooses equation (7d) because, at the stages represented by (7c-d), the

coefficients of x^^2 ^^ ^t-3 ^^^^ erratic. Hence, (7b) is chosen, not because the influence of new orders two and more quarters removed is zero, but

because the influence cannot be safely ascertained. Two points should be

noted: (l) The determination of whether the signs of the coefficients are

erratic depends on some a priori notion of the distribution of lag, although

alternating signs in successive equations certainly suggests an erratic situation; and (2) the fact that a variable taken with a given lag does not have a

determinable influence (in a least squares regression) does not mean that it

has no influence. When the intercorrelations among lagged values of the independent variables are high, the method suggested by Tinbergen is not likely to

prove useful.

When the General Form of the Distribution Is Assumed and

Estimation Is Made of Certain Characteristics

Fisher (13, 15), Alt (2), and Koyck (22) suggest that the form of the

distribution of the lag may be appropriately assumed and that specific characteristics of the distribution may then be estimated, given the form.

Use of a logarithmic normal curve time path.—Fisher (15, p. 323) writes:

"This best distribution [see the quotation from Fisher on page 73 presxmiably

has the general form of some type of probability curve. The working assumption is made that, immediately following the cause ..., the effect is very

small, but that it rises fast, reaching its mode after a very short interval

and then tapering off slowly. More specifically, the type of distribution

assumed is the 'normal* probability curve, provided, however, that not time but

the logarithm of time is used as the abscissa, (if time itself is plotted,

the cujrve is evidently very skew.) That is, the type is 'normal' logarithmically."

If time is treated as a continuous variable, rather than a discrete

variable, eqiaation (4), which represents a demand function, might be written

/C50

b(u) p(t-u)du (8)
- 10 -

where the quantity demanded, x(t), and the price, p(t), are continuous fimctions of time, and b(u) is the "weight" attached to price at the instant of

time t-u. Fisher's assumption was that the weights b(u) follow a logarithmic

normal distribution, such as that shown in figure 1, Clearly, the initial

effect of a price change is small, but as time passes the cumulative effect of

the change becomes greater. The full effects of a change are realized theoretically, however, only after the passage of an infinite amount of time. All

this, of course, is on the assumption that the change in price persists. If

the change occurs only instantaneously, the variable x(t) itself follows a

path such as that shown in figure 1. The maximum effect of an instantaneous

change occurs only at time u^ after the event, where Uj^ is the mode of the

distribution of b(u). Koyck (22, pp. 9-10) calls the distribution of b(u) the

"time-shape of an economic reaction" and the c\amulative distribution of b(u),

"the adjustment path."

Fisher (13) used a distributed lag of the form shown in figure 1 to study

the relation between changes in the general price level and changes in business activity. The logarithmic normal distribution of figure 1 was approximated by a discrete distribution, and the correlation between a weighted

average of current and past price levels and the level of business activity

was maximized with respect to changes in the variance of the distribution of

weights.

Use of an approximation to the logarithmic normal curve.—Later Fisher

(15) suggested an approximation to the distribution shown in figure 1 which

involves considerably less computational labor. Fisher (15, p. 32^) describes

his short-cut method as follows: "By ... [the] short-cut method the influence

of any cause ... is assumed to be the greatest at the very next time unit

(month or quarter) and then to taper off by equal decrements for each successive time unit. That is, the distribution curve becomes a straight line

beginning one month, or other time unit, after the 'cause.' There is only one

parameter to determine, namely the length of time elapsing to the end of the

distribution." The weight given to the value of the independent variable

lagged i periods by Fisher's short-cut method is proportional to

N-i

N

£ n

n=l

< N (9)

where N is the total number of periods to the point at which the effect becomes zero. If time is taken as a continuous variable, the weight for the

value lagged an amount of time t is proportional to

1 i^ t t < N (10)

The form of Fisher's second distribution of lag is shown in figiare 2.
11

FISHER'S FIRST DISTRIBUTION OF LAG

b(u)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC, 4408-87(8) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 1

FISHER'S SECOND DISTRIBUTION OF LAG

b(u)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG, 4409-87(8) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 2
- 12 -

Fisher's short-cut method may be illustrated by Berger*s study of India's

glass imports from the United Kingdom (k). Berger ran the following least

squares regressions:

x^ = a + b (3Pt + 2p^.i + Pt.2) (11^)

5

H = ^ + ^ (^Pj -^ 3Pt-i -^ gPt-2 -^ Pt>3) (11^)

10

x^ = a + b ($Pt -h 4p^,i ^ ... -i- p^,i^) (lie)

15

x^ = a + b (6p^ H- 5P^,-^ H- >., H- P^^^) (lid)

21

where x^ = the ratio of glass imports from the United Kingdom to total glass

imports during period t^ and p-^ = the ratio of British glass prices to prices

of competing glass. The simple correlations between the dependent variable

and the weighted average independent variable were O.858, O.881, O.856, and

0.751 for regressions (lia), (llb)> (lie), and (lid), respectively. Regression (lib), with the largest correlation, was selected as showing the 'T^est"

distribution of lag.

Lag distributions used by Alt and related distributions. —Alt (2) suggested special lag distributions of the general form

A e-«(N-i-c)2 ^^^^

or

A(N-i) e-B(N-i-^)^ (13)

where N and i have the same meaning as before. The derivatives of most of the

commonly used growth curves, such as the Gompertz or the Logistic, also provide reasonable distributions of lag. All of these distributions are difficixlt to estimate in practice due to the nuxriber of parameters involved.

Lag distributions that involve only a single parameter.—^Koyck (22) suggests an ingenious distribution of lag which involves only one parameter and

which lends itself readily to statistical application. Let time be measured

as a discrete variable and consider a demand equation such as (k). Koyck's

assumption is that after a certain point, say i=k, the series of coefficients

bjL, i=0, 1, ..., can be approximated by a convergent geometric series, so that

^k+m = öbk-wn-l (l^)

where m^0and0<ô<l. From (k) and (ik) it follows that
- 13 -

x^ = a + bo Pt + • • • + ^k-1 Pt-k+1 +

^k Pt-k + ^k ôPt-k-1 + ^k Ô ^Pt-k-2 +

bjç. §'^Pt-k-2 *" ••• "^^ ^k Ô Pt-k-m + ••• •

= a + bo Pt + • • • + ^k-1 Pt-k+1 + ^k S S "^Pt-k-m (^5)

m=0

Thus, x^ is a function of k-1 unweighted lagged prices and a geometrically

weighted average of all other past prices. If time is treated as a continuous

variable, Koyck's distribution of lag has the fona shown in figure 3. Figure 3

shows the distribution plotted for different values of the parameter ô •

If k=0, the long- and short-r\m elasticities and the exact distribution

of lag are particularly easy to estimate if the distribution has the general

form assumed by Koyck. Consider equation (15) with k=0. Then

x^ = a + boPt + 1^0 ^ Pt-1 + ^0 S^t-2 + ••• • (16)

If we lag (16) one period and multiply by 6 , we get:

&x^-l = a Ô + bo Ô Pt-l • • ^0 ^ Pt-2 + • • • (IT)

Now subtract (17) from (16) to get:

x^ = a(l- 6 ) + boPt + ^H^i (18)

The distribution of lag is given by the estimate of Ö, and the short-run

elasticity of demand is given by bo -£-«• The cvimulative effect of a maintained price change is x

^0 Ï ^"' = -1:^ (19)

if 0 < 6 < 1. Hence, the long-rvm elasticity of demand is given by

The statistical difficulties which arise in the use of Koyck's distribution of

lag are discussed below.
- Ik -

KOYCK'S DISTRIBUTION OF LAG

4.m

U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE N EÖ. 4410-97(8) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Pigixre 3

Based on Models of Expectation

Friedman (l6) and Cagan (5) each siaggest a model of expectation formation

which leads to a distribution of lag remarkably similar to Koyck's distribution. This model is discussed beginning on page 20 after certain siinpler

models have been described.

MODEIS FOR GENERATING DISTRIBUTED LAGS BASED ON TECHNOLOGICAL

AND INSTITUTIONAL RIGIDITIES

A variable with a distributed lag can be introduced into the demand

fimction in many alternative ways; only a few are considered here. As indicated on page 7, factors that cause distributed lags can be divided into two

categories~(l) those related to uncertainty about the future, and (2) those

related to technological or institutional rigidities. Alternative models

under each of these categories are discussed in detail in this and the following section.
- 15 -

Distinction Between Long- and Short-Run Elasticities

The traditional distinction between long- and short-run elasticities of

demand rests primarily on the consideration of technological or institutional

rigidities. 6/ Here we implicitly assvmie that changes in prices or income are

expected to be and are permanent changes. In the real world, any change may

be thought of as having a permanent and a transitory component. Only the permanent component is actually treated in the traditional analysis of the difference between long-run and short-arun demand.

To illustrate, let us begin with the simplest case: Suppose that expectations of prices and income are static, that is, consumers expect current

prices and incomes to persist indefinitely. Under an expectation of this

kind, all changes in prices or in income are expected to be permanent. Given

sufficient time to adjust, for every set of prices and,incomes one and only

one equilibrium quantity will be demanded. Call this the long-run equilibrium

quantity demanded and denote it by x^. The subscript t indicates that the

qixantity xf is that which would emerge in the long-run if the prices and the

income during period t were to persist indefinitely.

The quantity x* is never observed, because another change always occurs

before full adjustment to an initial change can take place. Nonetheless, the

quantity x* is important to consider because it is the only quantity uniquely

determined by prices and income. Figure k illustrates this point. Suppose

real income and the prices of commodities other than the one in question are

both held constant. Suppose, however, that the price of the commodity is

varied. Given siofficient time for adjustment, the quantities demanded trace

out the curve DLDL i^i figure k. This curve shows x^ as a f\inction of p^, the

price of the commodity in question. Consider the two points on DL^L corresponding to the prices pg and p^. Given sufficient time for adjustment, x* is

consumed at a price PQ and x*, at a price p^. If, however, we suddenly change

the price from PQ to pj^ consxamers increase their consumption, not from XQ to

X*, but from x* to x^, where xj^ < x*. Since x^ differs from x* only on

account of the difference in the time allowed for consiimers to adjust, it cannot exceed xj^. 7/ The point (x^, p^) lies on a short-run demand curve DQDQ.

If consumers fully adjust to the change in price, and then the price returns

to a level PQ, the quantity demanded will not be x* but XQ ^XQ. The point

(^0^ PQ) li^s on a different short-run demand curve D¿I)¿. The curve DQDQ is

appropriate only if we start from a position where x* is demanded; the curve

DQDQ is appropriate only if we start from a position x*. A different short-run

6/ See Marshall (24, pp. 37Ö-379)•

7/ The ciirves DLDL ^^^ %i^S ^^^ obtained for an individual consxamer by

assuming that he maximizes a utility function with certain properties subject

to some set of restraints. Under our assumptions the set of restraints is

larger the less the time allowed for adjustment, x* represents the maximimi

amount consiamers would demand at a price p^ provided they have time to adjust;

they always have the alternative of consuming less than x*, say x-j^.
- 16 -

LONG-RUN AND SHORT-RUN DEMAND CURVES

PRICE

XQ X^ XQ X*

QUANTITY

U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 4411-57(8) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure if. "Diagram that illustrates the relation between the lon^-run demand

curve^ DIPL^ ^^^ various short-run demand curves, Ds% ^^^ %%•

demand curve corresponds to each and every point along the long-run demand

curve. Although we observe only points lying on short-run demand curves and

these curves all differ, each curve is related to the unique long-run curve.

Normally we wish to estimate the coefficients of the long-run curve rather

than the coefficients of the many varying short-rvin curves. We can do this if

we formulate oior relationship properly.

Time Paths Followed in Moving Toward Equilibrium

If we hold real income and other prices constant, we may write

x^ = a + b p^ , (21)
-lías a linear approximation to the long-run demand function. The relation

between this function and the short-rim demand functions may be derived from

an assxamption about the path which observed consiamption woxild follow as it

moves toward its long-jnm equilibrium level if no further changes in price

occurred. Two such paths are plotted in figure 5* If at time 0, x* becomes

the new long-run equilibrium and if XQ = x*, then a curve such as A or B

describes "üae path of x-t to the new equilibrium position. The shape and form

of this path is determined by the type of institutional or technological

rigidities which exist.

If the rigidity is due primarily to technological factors, we might expect x^ to start rising immediately toward x*. As x* is approached, easy

substitutions are exhausted so that x^ proceeds more slowly towards x*. Such

a path is described by curve A in figure 5. After t periods have elapsed,

consumption is x(^) if A is the appropriate time-path. On the other hand, if

rigidity is due primarily to factors of an institutional nature, such as impediments to the spread of information concerning the price change, we might

expect consiamption to change only slowly at first, then more rapidly, and

finally slowly again; such a path is described by curve B in figure 5. After

t periods, consumption is x(|0 if B is the appropriate time path. xiÇ) is

less than xv^), in this case, but after a certain point in time it may exceed

x(^). The case of a fixed lag of t periods in the adjustment of x^ to x*

could be described by a curve with a horizontal segment lying along the timeaxis, a vertical segment at the point t, and another horizontal segment at a

level X* from t on out.

Difference or Differential Equations that

Characterize Alternative Time Paths

The time-paths under discussion may be characterized by the nature of

dx their derivatives,-¡j:p, if time is considered as a continuous variable. If

time is considered discrete, analogous difference equations may be formulated.

The basic differential equation which we may consider is

^ = 6(t) [x* - x^] (22) dt

where Ô (t) is some function of time whose range is the interval between zero

and one. By varying the function ô(t) we can produce time-paths of different

forms.

For example, let ô(t) be equal to a constant 6 for all t; then the

solution to (22) is

xt = (xS - x*)e - S t ^ ^^ ^gg^j

where XQ is the initial eqizilibrium position. The curve described by (22a) is

of the same general form as the ciirve A in figvire 5.
- 18 -

ALTERNATIVE TIME PATHS

TIME

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE N EG. 4412-87(8) AORlCULtURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 5.—^Alternative time-paths, A and B, of the movement of the observed

quantity consimaed, x^, toward the long-run equilihrium quantity, x*.

The functions Ô (t) which produce curves of the same general foirm as B in

figure 5 are typically rather, complicated. One such, for example, is the

probability density function of t where t is logarithmically normally distributed. We also could choose ô(t) in such a way as to obtain the Pearl-Reed

logistic cu3rve, which is of the same general form as B. We shall deal here

only with the simplest case in which ô (t) is a constant. It should be emphasized, however, that the appropriate form of the function ô(t) should be

selected on the basis of evidence related to the character of the rigidities

in consumer behavior.

Derivation of the Lag Distribution Assumed by Koyck

When ô (t) is a constant ô, the difference equation analogue of (22) is

H - ^t-1 = ô [xj - x^..i], 0 < Ô < 1 (23)
- 19 -

In this fonnulation we allow x^ to be a function of time. Clearly prices and

income are continvially changing over time, so that x* is also changing over

time. Eqxjation (23) may be solved for x-^ as a function of the fiinction x* and

the parameter Ô ; the solution is

xt= L 6(1-0)*-^ xt (2lf)

provided period 0 is in the sixfficiently distant past. 8/ Equation (24) shows

x^ to be a weighted average of the past values of x*, where the weights decline as one goes back in time. The sum of the weights

L 6(1- 0)^-^

eqxmls one since 0 < Ô < 1.

If we retain the simplifying assumption that real income and other prices

are held constant, we have by equations (21) and (24)

X. = a-fb r 6(1-0)*-^ p. (25)

that is, the quantity demanded is a linear function of lagged prices. The

distribution of lag is that assumed by Koyck (22), since the coefficient of

price lagged k+l years is (l- 6) times the coefficient of price lagged -k

years. (See pages 12-13.) If the demand equation is not (21) but

x^ = a + b p^ + c y^ (26)

we have

xt = a + b L Ôd-Ô)*"^ p^+c E Ô(l-Ô)^-^ y^ (2?)

x.=o. \=0

The important thing to note about equation (2?) is that the distribution of

lag for both income and price is the same. No essential difficulties are introduced if additional prices are added to the demand equation. If the demand

eqviation is

x^ = a + 2; bi Pi^ + c y^ (28)

i=l

this reduces to

0/ See Nerlove, Marc. Estimates of the Elasticities of Supply of Corn,

Cotton, and Wheat. Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University, I956, pp. 52-53.
- 20 -

n t t

x^ = a+X bi £ 6(1-6)*-^ Pi;, +c X 0(1-6)^-^ y;, (29)

i=l A.=0 \=0

Again all prices and income enter with the same distributed letg.

An even simpler formulation results from equations (23) and (28), If we

substitute (28) into (23) we have

n

x^ = a 6 + r b^ 6 p^^ + c 6 y^ + (1- 6 ) x^^^^ (30)

This result is the same as that obtained by Koyck's method of reduction if

applied to equation (29). (See pages 12-13.) The usefulness of our procedure, as opposed to Koyck's, is discussed in later paragraphs.

MODELS BASED ON UNCEEÎTAINTÏ ABOUT THE FUTURE

Let us now assume instead that technological or institutional rigidities

are absent, but that xmcertainty about the future exists and that habit is a

powerful force. Let us further suppose that expectations are not static.

Definition of Terms

Autonomous and induced price expectations.—For simplicity we begin by

considering only price expectations and chajiges in those expectations. Any

change in price expectationsmay be divided into two components: (l) autonomous and (2) induced. 9/

Autonomous changes in price expectations are the result of particular

causal factors such as, for example, changes in the levels at which the prices

of certain farm commodities are supported or changes in the taxes levied on

commodities like liquor or cigarettes. Autonomous changes may also be due to

wars, other social upheavals, or natural phenomena. Changes in price expectations due to sudden technological change may also be classed as autonomous.

Part of any change in expected future prices, however, typically is induced by a change in current prices. If people knew in every instance exactly

what factors caused a change in current price, no changes in price expectations would be induced: any change in price expectations would be related to

the specific causal factors. The typical consumer, however, is not generally

aware of the specific reasons for a change in a partic\ilar price. He therefore uses past prices as his guide to the future, at least to some extent.

9/ See Enthoven and Arrow (11, p. 289).
- 21 -

Expectations as to the future values of the price of a commodity gener- -

ally are not single-valued, that is, a consumer's expectations concerning the

price of a particular commodity cannot, in general, be represented by a single

nxmiber, but only by a fvmction of time. Both current price and price expectations may be asstimed to affect the quantity demanded for two reasons: (l) The

consumer maximizes not only today's satisfaction, but also tomorrow's, and

(2) the consumer may suffer a loss in utility or satisfaction if he alters his

accustomed habits. In order to analyze consumer behavior, however, we must

reduce the problem of price expectations to manageable proportions; singlevalued expectations are more manageable than are multi-valued expectations.

Permanent and transitory components of price changes.—Consideration of

induced changes in expectations of price leads to an interpretation in terms

of single-valued expectations. Any change in current price can be thought of

as divided into two components—(l) the permanent component; and (2) the transitory component. The permanent component of a change in current price

affects all expected futvire prices; the transitory component affects only some

of them and perhaps none of them. What is permanent and what is transitory

clearly depends on the length of the consumer's economic horizon. If the

horizon is short, almost all of a change in current price may be supposed to

be permanent; on the other hand, if the horizon is long, almost all the change

may be supposed to be transitory.

Let the average level about which future prices are expected to fluctuate

be called "expected normal price." Expectations about normal price are, of

course, single-valued. More important, however, is that, as defined, changes

in expected normal price are induced only by the permanent components of

changes in ciorrent price. The transitoary components of changes in current

price affect only the deviations of expected future prices about the expected

normal price.

If the force of habit is strong, two things result: (l) Changes in the

behavior of a consumer due to the pennanent component of a change in current

price are large compared with changes due to the transitory component. (2) The

effects of changes in expected normal price are even stronger as compared with

the effects of deviations of expected futxire prices about expected normal

price. It follows that, if the force of habit is strong, the effects of a

change in current price on consumer behavior are slight compared with the

effects of a change in expected normal price, and the effects of deviations

of expected future prices about expected normal price are negligible.

Permanent and transitory components of changes in income.—Similar conclusions apply when income is considered. The grounds are firmer, however,

for supposing that the effects of changes in expected normal income are strong

compared with changes in current income and even stronger compared with the

effects of deviations of expected future incomes about expected normal income.

Indeed Friedman (l6. Chap. II) has gone so far as to say that changes in expected normal income are the only changes in income that affect aggregate
- 22 -

consumption expendítiires, 10/ The reason for Friedman's hypothesis is related

to his discussion of the tendency of consumers to even out their consimrption

over long periods of time. (See pages 93-96 .) The importance of Friedman's

work on the aggregate consumption fxanction goes beyond this point, however,

and is discussed in detail beginning on page 93 .

Induced changes in the expected normal price of a commodity may depend

upon changes in the current prices of commodities other than the one in question. For example, a change in the current price of steel may affect consumers' expectations of the normal price of automobiles even more than a

change in the current price of automobiles. For the present, however, we

neglect the effect of changes in the current prices of commodities other than

the one in question upon that commodity's expected normal price.

Definition of the coefficient or elasticity of expectations.—A model

which shows the effect of a change in c\irrent price upon expected normal price

may be derived from Hick's definition of the elasticity of expectations. 11/

Hicks defines "the elasticity of a particular person's expectations of the

price of a commodity x as the ratio of the proportional rise in expected

future prices of x to the proportional rise in its current price." Hicks

distinguishes two limiting cases: an elasticity of zero, implying no effect

of a change in current price upon expected future prices; and an elasticity

of one, implying that if prices were previously expected to remain constant,

that is, were at their long-r\m equilibrium level, they are now expected to

remain constant at the level of current price. Clearly, an elasticity of expectations equal to one implies "static" expectations in the sense in which

the term is used above. By allowing for a range of elasticities between the

two extremes. Hicks implicitly recognizes that a particuilar past-price may

have something but not everything to do with people's notion of normal.

Hicks' definition of the elasticity of expectations implies that prices

have actually been "normal" until some chajige occxarred, as the change in ciirrent price is expressed as a deviation from what prices were up to now. But,

of course, we know that conditions are seldom if ever "normal" in the real

world; and "noxiuality" itself is a subjective matter. Instead of expressing a

change in c\irrent price as a deviation from a level of past prices, let us

express it as a deviation frooa what was previously the expected normal price.

Let pt be the expected normal price of a particular commodity during period t,

let pt be the actual price of the commodity during t, and let ß be the elasticity of expectations. Hicks' definition of ß implies

log p* - log p*.i

iz = ß (31)

log Pt - log Pt-i

10/ Friedman uses the term "permanent income" rather than our term "expected

nonnal income." The use of the longer term in our case is related to the fact

that we consider price expectations as well as income expectations.

11/ See Hicks (l8, p. 205)> Arrow and Nerlove (3), and Nerlove, op. cit.,

pp. 50-51.
- 23 -

If the prices in equation (31) are expressed, not in logarithms, but in terms

of actual values, it seems appropriate to call ß , not the elasticity of

expectations, but the coefficient of expectations. Thus,

Pt -Pt-l =ß tPt -Pt-ll (32)

where ß is now defined as the coefficient of expectations*

Equation (32) exactly expresses the distinction between the permanent and

traasitory components of a change in current price. If the change in current

price is expressed as a deviation from the previous expected normal price, the

coefficient of expectation, ß , is just the proportion of the change which is

regarded as the permanent component of the change; 1-ß is the proportion regarded as the transitory component.

Variables that affect the coefficient of expectations.—The elasticity or

coefficient of expectations may be a fimction of a variety of variables. As

indicated on pa^e 21, it is related to the length of a consumer's economic

horizon. In times of great social upheaval, war, or revolution, the representative economic horizon may grow very short. Other institutional factors

may influence the length of the economic horizon as well, but if they do,

these factors are likely to affect equally the elasticities or coefficients of

expectation for different commodities.

More important are those factors which may influence the coefficients of

expectation for particular commodities while not affecting, or affecting differently, the coefficients for other commodities. For example, the elasticity

or coefficient of expectation may be a decreasing function of the typical

variance of prices. Consider two markets, one in which fluctxiations about

some "norm'' are of small magnitude and one in which frequent fluctuations of

large magnitude are common. In which market will consumers pay most attention

to a given price change in forming their expectations of "normal" price? It

seems intuitively clear that ß will be larger for the first market and

smaller for the second. 12/ If a market for a particxaar commodity changes in

character and becomes, say, more like the second market and less like the

first, then we might reasonably expect the coefficient of expectation for the

price of that commodity to fall.

A model which applies when Jß^ is a constant between zero and one.—In

spite of the difficiilties discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it seems useful, as a first approximation, to assxmie that ß is a constant. We fiirther

assume, in light of the relation between ß and the concepts of permanent and

transitory components, that ß lies between zero and one. The model based

upon equation (32) and the assumption that ß is a constant has been used in

the study of supply functions for agricultural commodities; the differential

equation analogue of the model has been used by Cagan (5) in his study of

hyper-inflations, and by Friedman (I6) in his study of the aggregate consumption function.

Ig/ See Nerlove, op. cit., pp. 5^-59^
. 24 -

The model based on equation (32) may also be applied to income. Let y^

be expected normal income during period t, let y^ be actual income during t,

and let a be the coefficient of income expectation; then, euialogously to (32)

y* - yt-1 = ^tyt - yt-i^^ o< a < i (33)

Equations (32) and (33) are first-order difference equations in expected

normal price and expected normal income, respectively. Hence, they may be

solved for p* and y^ as functions of the fimctions p-t and y^, respectively.

The solution to (32) is

PÎ=: £ ß(l.ß)*-^ p;, (34)

X=0

and the solution to (33) is

yî= L a(l-a)*-^ y;, 13/ (35)

x.=o

We assvone that period 0 is in the distant past.

The current demand for a commodity, x^, generally depends on both the

cvurrent and expected normal values of price and income. If all prices other

than the price of the commodity in question are held constant, we may write a

typical demand function, in linear approximation, as

xt = a + ho Pt + i3i Pt + CO yt + ci y* (36)

Substitution of (3^) and (35) into (36) yields

t

xt = a + bo Pt + Di X ß (1- ß )*-^ Px +

\=0

Co yt + ci X a(l- a)*" y^

X=0

= a+ (bo +biß)pt + bi L ß(l-ß)*-^ p^ +

\=0

(CQ + cia)y^ + c^ L a(l-a)^- y;, (37)

13/ See Nerlove, op. cit., pp. 52-53«
- 25 -

Hence, the qiaantity demanded, x^, is a function of price and income each taken

with a distributed lag. If we neglect the terms in unlagged price and income,

each distribution of lag, for price and for income, taken by itself, is similar to Koyck's distribution of lag, discussed on pages 12-13. Each taken by

itself is also similar to the distribution of lag discussed beginning on page

18 when expectations were assigned to be static.but rigidities of a technological or institutional nature existed. Note, however, that while, in the case

of static expectations, we found the distribution of la^ to be the same for

both price and income, we now have different distributions of lag for price

and income.

Reduced equations.—^When expectations were assumed to be stati'c and

rigidities of a technological nature were introduced, a simple reduction of an

equation involving a distributed lag was found to be possible. Thus, equation

(29) (see page 20) was reduced to eqioation (30). The former, (29), involved a

distributed lag; the latter, (30), did not. JEquation (29) was not reduced

directly to eqiiation (3Ó); instead the two equations from which (29) had been

derived, equations (23) and (28), were used to derive eqxmtion (30). In what

follows we call an eqiaation such as (30), which is derived from or related to

an eqioation which does involve a distributed lag, such as (29), a "reduced

equation." This term shoxald not be confused with the "reduced forms" used in

the theory of estimation of simultaneous equations.

The study of reduced equations that involve distributed lags is important

because such reduced eqixations may be estimated statistically more easily than

the parent equations that involve distributed lags. Koyck (^) proceeds

directly from an equation involving a distributed lag to its reduced version.

He does this primarily because he does not formiilate a model leading to a distributed lag but directly assumes the existence and form of such a lag. Under

the assumption of static expectations, our indirect method of arriving at a

reduced equation is only slightly easier than Koyck's direct method. When the

distributed lags are of an expectational nature, however, our method is more

direct than Koyck's and indeed makes reductions possible which would be impossible if Koyck's method were used. When we come to consider models involving

both imcertainty and technological or institutional rigidity, its virtues

become even more apparent.

An Indirect Method for Obtaining Reduced Equations

The general demand equation corresponding to (36) is

x^ = a + £ [boi Pit + ^li Pit] + <^o yt +^1 yt (38)

where p^^ is the acttial price of the ith commodity and Pj_* is the expected

normal price of the ith commodity. We assiame that there are n-1 commodities

related in demand to the commodity under consideration. If ß. is the coefficient of expectations for the ith commodity, if ^
-. 26 -

Piî - Pitl = ßi fPit - Pitl^ (39)

for ail commodities, and if equation (33) holds, we have, for the general

demand equation involving a distributed lag,

xt = a + r I (boi + bii ßi)pit + X ßid- ßi)*"^ PiXI +

i-1 I V-0 J

*-l t X

(CQ + o^a)y^ + X a(l. a)^"'^ y^ (hO)

X=:0

An eqxiation such as (^0) is virtually impossible to reduce directly.

In order to illustrate our indirect method, we may assume, without loss

of generality, that

a = 0

^Oi"^ 0 for all i,

and CQ =0 (4l)

for otherwise we might simply define the variable on the left hand side of

(38), not as the quantity demanded, x^, but as

n

(x^ - a - X boi Pit - ^0 yt)

i=l

The method may best be illustrated by considering only simple cases at first.

When only one expected price varies.—Let all expected prices but one be

held constant and let expected real income be held constant, then o\ir demand

equation becomes

^t = ^li Pit (^2)

and o\ir expectation fiinction may be written

- ßi Pit = - Pit + (1- ßi) Pit-1 iit/ (^3)

Lagging both eqxiations (42) and (43) one period we have

x^.i = bii Piî.i +0 1

( (^)

- ß i Pit-1 = - Pit-1 + (1- ßi) Pit-2 .

Ik/ Equation (43) may be derived from equation (39) above.
27 -

These two equations may be solved for a unique value of P-L+.I • Let

and A

A =

(i)

T=li 0

-1 (1-ß l)

^t-1 0

-ßi Pit-l(l- Pi)

i^3)

Then

Pit-1 = —t^

SO that, substituting (k6) in (^3), we have

- ßiPit = -Pii-*-(i-ßi) iíil

or

Pit = ßi Pit + (i-ßi)

Substituting (k8) into (k2) we have

±m.

H = ^ii ßi Pit + (i-ßi)bii ^(1)

On expanding the determinants à ,^\ and A, we have a reduced equation

^t = "^11 ßi Pit + (1-ßi) ^t-l

(k6)

(^7)

(U8)

ih9)

(50)

which is just the equation we should have found if we had employed a direct

method of reduction. The original demand equation (¿1-2) involves one expectational variable and its reduced form, (50), involves one more variaEle than in

the original equation.

When one expected price and real income vary.—Wext, consider the case in

which one expected price and expected real income are left free to vary. Our

system is thus composed of one demand equation and two expectational

equations :

^t = ^li Pit + ^1 yt ^

ßi Pit = -Pit + (1-ßi) Pitl > >

ayt -vt + (1- oc ) yj.

(51)

If we lag the demand equation one and two periods and lag each of the expectational equations one period, we obtain a system of four equations
- 28 -

Let

and

^t-1 = "bii Pit-1 + °i yt-i

H-2 = 0 + 0

ßi Pit-1 = Pit-1 + 0

a yt^i = 0 + -A-,

A =

(i)

A' =

+ ^li Pit-2 + °i yt-2

+ (l-ßi)Pit-2 + 0

+ 0 + (l-a)y*_2

> (52)

^>li Cl 0 0

0 0 ^li °1

-1 0 (1- ßi) 0

0 -1 0 (1- a)

^t-1 °1 0 0

xt-2 0 ^li ci

-ßi Pit-1 0 (1-13i) 0

- ayt-1 -1 0 (1-a)

T^li ^t-1 0 0

0 H-2 ^li °1

-1 -ßi Pit-1 (1- ßi) 0

0

- °^ yt-1 0 (1-a)

it-1 " A

and y^-1 =

A'

A

Clearly,

Hence, substituting (54) into (51) and solving for x^, ve have

x-t = 1311 ßi Pit + °i "^yt +

(53)

i3h)

H± (1-ßi) -^ + °1 (l-oc)4^ (55)
. 29 -

Equation (55) is the reduced equation of the system defined by eqxiations (51);

it involves the variables x^, p^^, y^, x^-i^ x^-2> Pit-1^ ^^^ yt-1- ^^ original demand equation involved two expectational variables and its reduced

equation involves four more non-expectational variables than expectational

variables in the original equation*

The determinants A /¿\, A', and A may be expanded to yield an explicit

equation in x^, p^^, y^^, H-l> H-2> Pit-1> ^^^ yt-1* 1^ "^^^s is done, we

find (55) gives

xt = l^li ßi Pit + ci a y^ -

bj^i (1-a) ß^ p^^^^ - c^ a (1- ß^) y^^^ +

^[(1-oc) + (1-ß)] xt.i -

(l-a) (l-ßi) xt.2 (56)

This same reduced equation may be found by using a variant of Koyck's method,

but reduction is then quite involved. 15/

Application to a general case.—^The method of solution in the general

case follows qid.te readily from the siitrple illustrations discussed above. In

our general system we have one demand eq\aation and n+1 expectational equations.

We assume that n-1 commodities are related, in demand, to the commodity lander

consideration. Our general system is

n

^t ^ ^ ^li Pit + ^1 yt

i=l

- ßi Pit = - Pit + (1-ßi) Pit-1 (i=lr2, ...n) (57)

- oc yt = - yt + (1-a) y^.-L

We now lag the demand equation 1 period, 2 periods, etc., up to n+1 periods;

and we lag each of the expectational equations 1, 2, ..., up to n periods.

This gives us a system of n+l + n(n+l) = (n-f-l)^ equations involving (n+l)^

expectational variables. This system may be written

15/ See Nerlove, op. cit., pp. 25Ö-260.
30 -

n

xt-1

^t-n-l =

^ ^li Pit-1 +

i=l

ci'yt-1

n

^ ^li Pit-n-1 +

i=l

=1 yt-n-1

- ßi Pit-1= - Pit-1 + (1- ßi) Pit-2

-ß i Pit-n= - Pií-n + (1- ßi) Piî-n-1

i=l, .•.• n

<^yt-i - yï-i + (1- oc ) y*_2.

(58)

°^yt-n = - yt-n + (i-«^) yt-n-1

The relevant detemünant of these eqtiations is

Cj^ O . • • O

A =

^11

•

b-L2

•

••'. ^In • • • \J • • • 0

•

>. 0

•

0 0 • • • D"i n • • •

^in

-1 0 0 ...(1- ßl)... 0

0 -1 0 • • • vj • • • 0

-1 (1- a) ... o

O -1 ... O

(59)

O O ... -1 o ... (1-ßn) o o ...(1-a)

The determinant A /^\ is A with the substitution of the vector

(xt_i> ••', H-n-1' - ß 1 Plt-1' •> - ß n Pnt-1^ "^ yt-1' ••• '^ yt-n) '

for its ith colTjmn, i=l, 2, ..., n. The determinant A ' is A with the substitution of the same vector for its (n2+n+l)st column. The solution of

eqiaations (58) for Pit-i and y*_i may be written

Pit-1 = Aiil (i=l, ..., n)

andyti =-~- (60)
- 31 -

Consequently, equations (57) reduce to

n

^t == ^ ^li ßi Pit + ci a y^ +

i=l

^ ^li (1- ßi) -^ -*• ^1 (1-^)4^ (^1)

i=l

Equation (6l) is the reduced eq\aation of the demand equation involving distributed lags that could have been derived from equations (57)• The original

demand equation involved n+1 expectational variables; equation (6l) involves

(n+1)^ more non-expectational variables than the original equation involved

expectational variables. In principle the determinants A, ^(i)> ^^* ^'>

could be expanded to yield an explicit equation for x^.

The method of reduction described in the preceding paragraphs involves

the reduction of only one equation, the particxilar demand eqxiation in which we

have an interest. For that reason we may call it the "single-equation" method

of reduction. As noted above the reduced equation obtained by the singleequation method contains many variables; in fact, the nuniber of additional

variables added to the nxmiber already in the eq\iation increases as the square

of the nvmiber of expectational variables involved. For purposes of statistical analysis, therefore, the single-equation method is only efficient when a

small niirriber of expectational variables are involved. Two or three expectational variables are all that can be handled comfortably by the singleequation method of reduction: in the case of two expectational variables, the

reduced equation contains six independent non-expectational variables; in the

case of three expectational variables, it contains twelve. For cases that

involve more than two or three expectational variables, the "multiple-equation"

method of reduction is preferred.

The M\iltiple Eqi^ation Method of Reduction

If one commodity is a substitute for or a complement of another, that is,

if the two commodities are related in demand, it follows that the second will

also be a substitute for or a complement of the first; that is, if the price

of one commodity enters the demand equation for another, the price of the

latter enters the demand equation for the foimer. Pxnrtlxermore, if the quantity demanded of individual commodities is related to income, so is the aggregate consumption. The multiple equation method of reduction of a demand

eqviation involving distributed lags of an expectational natvire takes advantage

of the existence of all of the equations which involve the same expectational

variables. 16/

16/ For an application of this method to supply eqi;iations, see Nerlove,

op. cit., pp. 260-262.
- 32 -

When only one expected price varies.—Consider first the simple case in

which all expected normal prices but one are held constant. We retain the

assumption that the quantity demanded depends only on expected normal price

and expected nonnal income and not on current price or current income. This

assumption is relaxed in the models discussed beginning on page 39*

In this simple case we must consider two eqiiations, a demand equation and

a consumption function, in order to apply the multiple equation method. Let

Ct be aggregate real consumption expenditures in period t, and let cm+i be

the marginal propensity to consume out of expected normal income. Neglecting

constant terms, our system is

xt = l^ii Pit + ci y*

Ct = 0 •f cin+1 yt

Pit = ß i Pit ^ (1- ßi) Pitl

yt + (1- ^ ) yt-i .

>

yî = a

(62)

where the subscript i indicates that we are varying only the price of the ith

commodity. Equations (62) may be written in the form of two matrix equations

Pit

yt

o • [ - C: 1

(63)

Lagging the first of these equations one period and multiplying both sides by

the inverse of

(

li

0 ^ln+1/

we obtain an expression for (Pit-i> yt-l) ^l^ich may be substituted in the

second of equations (63):

(6k)

Equation (ok) may be substituted in the first of equations (63) to yield a

reduced matrix eq\iation:
'li

o

I -

a

'li

-1

(65)

This yields the follovitig two eq\iations vhen expanded

^t »li Pi Pit + ci i^yt + (1- ßi) ^t-l +

[(1-a) -

'li (1- ßi)3 Vi

Ct =

^In+l

cin+1 ayt + (1-a) Ct-i

> (66)

Thus, by the multiple equation method, a demand equation involving two

expectational variables and a consumption function involving one expectational

variable are reduced to a demand equation involving only tvo more non-expectational variables than the expectational variables involved in the original

demand equation, and a consumption function involving only one more non-expectational variable than the expectational variables involved in original consomption function* This resxilt should be contrasted with the result of the

single-equation method when applied to a similar case. (See page 29.)

Application to a general case.—The multiple-equation method may easily

be generalized to the case in which each demand equation contains the prices

of n commodities. It is only necessary to consider the demand equations for

all n commodities. Let x^^ be the q\iantity demanded of the ith commodity,

then the complete set of n demand equations may be written

n

^it = ^ ^lij Pjt + <^ii y*

To this we must add a consumption function

Ct =

and n+1 expectational equations

ßi Pit + (1-ßi) Pit-1

ay^ + (l-a) y*^^

(i=l, ..., n)

^m+i yt

Pit ==

yl -

(i=l, ..., n) }

(67)

(68)

(69)

Let
- 3h -

H = («It» *2t» •••» 3Cn^.)'

PÎ = (Plt» P2V '"> Pnt)'

Pt = (Plf P2t> • .. Pnt)'

c (c-Li, Ci2> •••-' ^In)' .

> (70)

and let B =

l^ä be the matrix of the coefficients of expected normal

prices in equations (67) and ß "be a matrix with the ß^ along the diagonal

and zeros elsewhere. Then equations (67) and (68) may be written in matrix

form as

^In+l

Equations (69) may be written in matrix form as

17/ (71)

ex,

I -

OCv

(72)

Equations (71) and (72) are of exactly the same form as equations (63),

and they may be solved for the reduced versions of the demand equations and

the consuniption function in exactly the same way. Doing so we have

^O

'ln+l>

'B

.0 <^ln+l,

I -

-1

-ln+1

H-l

't-1

Equation (73) may be reduced to still simpler form. We note that

-1 /B-1 -B-^cc-l ,

ln+1

-1

(73)

where c£n+i = /^In+l ^^ ^^^^ particular case. Substituting (74) into (73) we

have

17/ The reader shoxad note that B and ß in this and the equations that

follow are matrices and x^, c, and p^ are column vectors. C^, ^ln+l> ^^* ^t

in this equation are sealers.
- 35 -

/Bß ca

'B

-ln+1

'ln+1/

(l-ß) 0

. 0 (1- a ).

B-^ -B-\ c¿M / x^_^

0 °ln+l t-1.

'ln+1

B(l-ß )B"^ -B(I- ß)B" c c^n+1 + =(1"°^ )<^în+l

(1-a)

(75)

Since the matrix ß is not an identity matrix times a scalar, that is, since

the coefficients of expectations for the prices of different commodities generally differ, we cannot reduce the terms B(l- ß )B"-'- any further.

Since the terms involving B(l- ß )B'"-'- cannot be further reduced, each reduced demand eqiaation, in addition to n current prices and current income,

also generally involves lagged values of the quantities demanded of the n

commodities included in the system and the lagged value of aggregate consumption. Hence, each reduced demand equation contains twice as many non-expectational independent variables as the expectational independent variables

contained in each original demand equation. Thus if each original demand

equation contains n expected normal prices and expected normal income, each

reduced demand eqxxation contains, in addition to n+l current values of prices

and income, n+1 lagged values of the quantities demanded and aggregate consxmiption. This result should be contrasted with the result for a similar case

obtained using the single equation method of reduction. (See page 31•)

The single equation method leads to one reduced demand equation containing (n+l) + (n-fl)2 independent variables; the multiple equation method leads

to n reduced demand equations each containing 2(n+l) independent variables.

For statistical purposes, the latter are clearly preferable: whenever the

nuniber of expectational variables to be included in the demand equation exceeds two or three, the multiple equation method of reduction shoxild be

employed.

Separability of Eqiaations

Equations (75) show that the reduced equation of the consuinption fxanction

is "separable" from the reduced equations of the demand equations in the sense

that it involves only lagged consumption in addition to current income. The
- 36 -

demand equations, however, are not separable in this sense. This property of

separability may be generalized and, as we shall see, the case in which the

original demand eqxiations involve non-expectational variables is a special

case of generalized separability. The case discussed immediately above is

also a special case of generalized separability.

Consider the system of demand equations

^t- t = ^^ '^vlt (76)

where ç ^ is a vector of quantities demanded, 7; ^ is a vector of expectational

variables, and F is an (n+m) x (n+m) matrix of coefficients. The expectational variables rj "^ are assimaed to be generated by expectational equations of

the. form

^t = ^^t + (I-^) -^t-l (TT)

where € is a matrix with e^ (i=l> 2, ... n+m) along the diagonal and zeros

elsewhere. We call the system defined by (76) and (77) separable if and only

if the matrix T can be partitioned in the following way:

"{I D <^^'

where B is an nxn matrix, A is an mxm matrix, and D is an nxm matrix.

Corresponding to any partition, such as (78), we may also partition ^^,

V tf "^t^ ^"^^ ^ as follows:

77+ =

^t =

and € = (79)

\0 a/

where zt is a vector (z^^, ..., z^^)', q.-^ is a vector (q^^, ..., q^t) S ^t ^^
- 37 -

a vector (qit> •••> %it)> ^"^^ ^ ^^ ^"^ ''^^ ^ matrix with a^ (i=l> •••> m) along

its diagonal and zeros elsewhere. Thus, a separable system may be written

and its expectational equations may be written

(80)

ß

0

(i-ß) o

o (I-Ot)

(81)

Equations (80) aaá (8l) may be reduced by the multiple equation method in

exactly the same vay as equations (63) were reduced; the resxolt is

D

A

ß

0

B"-^D A"^'

^t-1

't-1

(82)

(83)

B(I- ß)B~l

0

-B(I- ß )B-^D A"^ + D(I- a )A-1'

A(l-a)A"l

i6k)

Equation. (8U) clearly indicates that the reduced deimand eq\witions for the

zit (i=l> ^^'^ m) do not involve the lagged values xit-l (i=l> •••, n). These

reduced demand equations are therefore separable in exactly the same sense as

the reduced consumption function of the previous example.

A separable system of demand equations possesses an interesting property,

as illustrated by the following. Equation (8U) may be written as the two

equations
xt = (B ß , D a ) (

- 38 -

^t-1 (B(I- ß )B-1, -B(I- ß )B-1M-1 + D(I- a )A'^) ^'-^ (85)

EUld

z^ = A a q^ + A(l- a )A~-^ z^.-^ (86)

Equation (86) may be solved for q^:

q^ = a -1A-1 z-t - ^ ''^^''^ A (I- a )A-1 Z^_-L

= a -1A-1 zt - (I- a )A-1 z^.i (8?)

Substituting (87) into (85), we have

xt = (B ß, DA-1) ( 1 - D(I-a)A-1 z^.i +

H

H-l (B(l-ß)B-l, - B(I-ß )B-1 DA-1) '"•'] +

D(l-a)A~l z^^3^

= (B ß, M-1) r^\ +

H-l^ (B(I- ß)B-^ - B(l-ß)B-l DA-l) ( ^] (88)

On the other hand, we might start with eqiiation (8o) and solve part of

the equations for q* in terms of z^. Since z^ = Aq*, we obtain

x^ = (B, D) r*^ j= (B, DA-l) r* j (89)

Application of the multiple eqimtion method of reduction to equation (89),

with expectational equations

Pt = ß Pt + (I-ß ) Pt-1

leads to equation (88).
- 39 -

If, therefore, a system of demand equations is separable, it does not

matter whether we separate the original equations by the elimination of some

expectational variables or whether we separate the reduced eq\aations by elimination of some current variables. l8/ Thus, in the example involving the

consumption function discussed beginning on page 32, we could proceed in two

ways: (l) as we did, by reducing the whole system, including the consumption

fiHiction; or (2) by solving the consunrption function for expected income, substituting this solution into the demand equations, and then reducing only the

demand equations without bothering about the consunrption function.

Modifications When C\irrent Price and

Income Enter the Demand Equations

In most of the preceding discussion we have maintained the assumption

that current values of price and income do not enter the demand equations;

that is, we have assumed for each commodity that the coefficients bQi and CQ,

in equation (39) (s^e page 26), are zero for all i. If current prices arid

current income do enter the demand eqimtions, then bQi (i=l^ •••> n) and CQ

cannot be assxmied to eqxxal zero.

A system of demand eqxaations involving both current and expected normal

values of prices and income may be written in matrix form as

^t = ^oPt + BiPt + CQyt -^ c^yï (90)

where BQ is a matrix of coefficients, bQii^ of current prices; Bj^ is a matrix

of coefficients, b^j^j, of expected normal prices; CQ is a vector of coefficients, CQi, of ctarrent income; and c^ is a vector of coefficients, c^^^, of

expected normal income. The subscript i refers to the ith commodity, and, for

simplicity, we again assvime that all constant terms in the demand equations

are zero. To make the system complete we must, of course, add a consumption

fiinction and a set of expectational eqtmtions such as (72). The complete

system thus obtained is a special case of a system in which the demand equations involve non-expectational variables as well as expectational variables.

We shall show that such a system is, in turn, a special case of a separable

system (as defined by equations (8o) and (6l)).

Suppose we have a system of demand equations that express the quantity

demanded of each commodity as a linear function of n expectational variables

and m non-expectational variables. Let ¿^^ be a vector of quantities demanded, '^ * be a vector of expectational variables, Í ^ be a vector of nonexpectational variables, T be a matrix of coefficients of the expectational

variables, and A be a matrix of the coefficients of the non-expectational

variables. Then the system of demand equations may be written

^ = rr, * + A C t (91)

10/ A statistical difference^ however^ is involved in the two approaches.

See the material beginning on page 6k.
ko .

If ß is a matrix with coefficients of expectation along its diagonal and

zero elsewhere, we may write the n expectational equations

^t = ß^ t + (l-ß) 77 t-l (92)

where v t '^^ '^^^ vector of current values of the expectational variables.

In order to show that (91) and (92) define a special sort of separable

system, we introduce a dummy variable ^ * defined by the eqxiation

If we etdd equation (93) to equations (91) and (92) > we have

'ft\ /r A'

and

(93)

i9k)

(95)

The system defined by (9^^) and (95) is clearly separable.

Comparison with equations (8o) and (8l) show that the following substitutions yield (9^) and (95): x^ = it> H = ^t* Pt = ^t» <lt = ^t> B = ^ »

D=A,A = I, and a = I. Consequently, from (84), we see that the reduced

equation of (94) is

r(i-ß)r-i

0

-r(i- ß)r'^A

0

(96)

that is,

^^ = rß T7t+ A u +r (i-ß)r-i ft-i - r(i-ß)r"^^ ^t-i (97)

The reduced version of the system defined by equations (90) and (72),

that is, the system in which the demand equations include current values as

well as expected normal values, follows as a special case of equation (97); it

is only necessary to substitute (Bi, cj) for F, (BQ, CQ) for A , rj ^ and i^

for (p^, y^)*, and to let the matrix of coefficients of expectations be
rather than ß . From (97) we have, therefore, that the reduced equation of

the system (90) and (72) is

(Bici) r'^ / ] (Bici)-l (Bo Co) f""^"^

(BiCi) ( ^" ° ) (Bici)-l [l-(Bo Co)] ( ^"M (98)

0 1-a, .yt-i,

MODEIS THAT INVOLVE BOTH RIGIDITIES AND UNCERTAINTY

Reduction of equations with distributed lags to equations without distributed lags is of importance in connection with statistical estimation. Our

discussion of reduction illustrates two points that are crucial to the understanding of distributed lags: (l) Reduction of an equation with a distributed

lag due to technological or institutional rigidities alone can be accomplished

simply (see equation (30), page 20). (2) Reduction of equations involving

distributed lags of an expectational nature is much more complicated, but a

considerable degree of simplification may be obtained through the multipleequation method of reduction. The reason for the great simplicity of reduction in the case of distributed lags of a non-expectational nature is the fact

that the distribution of lag for every variable entering the equation with a

distributed lag is the same. The simplicity of reduction in the case of distributed lags of an expectational nature through the use of the multipleequation method is possible only because the distributions of lag for the same

variable in different equations are the same, even though the distributions

for different variables in the same equation are not. When distributed lags
- 42 -

are due both to imcertainty and rigidities of technological or institutional

nature, the distribution of lag is both different for different variables in

the same equation and different for the same variable in different eqxjations;

hence, no simplicity of reduction is possible in general. If, however, the

distributions of lag are of a special form, simple reduction is still

possible.

When Current Price Does Not Affect the Long-R\m Equilibrium Demand

First podel.--Suppose that real income and other prices, current and expected, are held constant. If we suppose that the current price of the commodity in question does not affect the long-run equilibrium demand for it, we

have, in this simple case

4 = 1^ Pt (99)

where x^ is the long-run equilibrium quantity demanded, and Pt is the expected

normal price of the commodity in question. We suppose, without loss of

generality, that the constant term in the demand equation is zero. We may

also suppose that the expected normal price is related to past actual prices

by an equation of the same form as equation (32) (see page 23),

Although current price does not affect the long-run equilibriiam quantity

demanded, we cannot assume that it does not effect the current demand. Consequently, we cannot use an equation of the form of equation (23) (see page l8)

to express the relation between the current quantity demanded and the long-rim

equilibrium quantity demanded. Instead, we suppose that the change in current

demand depends not only upon the difference between the actual and long-run »

equilibrixmi quantities demanded but also upon the difference between current

price and expected normal price, that is,

^t - ^t-l = SQ[P^ . p^] + Ô3.[xt - xt.i] (100)

If current price is greater than expected normal price, we might expect the

adjustment of current demand to long-run equilibrium demand to be slower than

if current price were less than expected normal price, with a given difference

between long-rvin equilibrixmi demand and current demand; hence, we assume that

6 0 is negative or zero, but not positive.

Equations (32), (99)> and (lOO) lead to a relationship between the current quantity demanded and price taken with a distributed lag. The distribution of lag in this case is complicated. Equations (32) and (lOO) each are

first-order difference equations: the solution to (32) is given in equation

(3^) (see page 2k); the solution to (lOO) is

xt= X (l-ôi)*-^ [Sixt + 6o (Px -P1)] (101)

\=0
- 1*3 -

Substituting (3h) into (99) and (lOl), and substituting the result from (lOl)

into the resiat from (99), we have

x+ = L /(l-ôi)*-^ [ô^b L ß(l.ß)^-^

5oP>^ - So X yß(l-ß) ^'^ P;.

fj.-0

^l) " ^0 Px

X

(1-03^)*-^ (ô^b - ÔQ) r ß(l-ß)^-^pA (102)

^=0 J

Clearly, the distribution of lag is complicated. The reduced form of (102) is

not, however, particularly complicated. Substituting (lOO) into (99) we have

x^ = (b 63^ - SQ) P* + ^0 Pt + (l-^l) ^t-l (103)

Applying equation (97) (see page ^^O), with the appropriate siibstitutions, we

have

x^ = [b ß 5i + (1- ß ) SQ] pt - (1-ß ) ÔQ Pt-i +

[(1-ß) + (1-61)] xt.i - (1-ß) (l-ôi) xt.2 (lOM

Demand equations which contain more than one expected normal price and/or

expected normal income offer no further complications. Substitution of the

long-run demand equations into the relations between the change in current

demand and the difference between long-run equilibrium and current demand

yields a system of equations in which expectational and non-expectational

variables enter* These equations, along with the corresponding expectational

equations, may be reduced without difficiilty by the m\iltiple equation method.

Second model.—A form\ilation, alternative to equation (lOO), of the relation between the rate of change in current demand and the differences between

current and expected normal price and between current and long-run equilibrium

demand may be stated: In our discussion of rigidities due to institutional or

technological causes, we expressed the derivative of the time-path of the

movement of the current quantity demanded toward the long-run equilibrium

quantity as

-^ = Ô (t) [X* - X]
. kk -

or in first-difference form as

Equation (lOO) arose out of a specific choice of the fiinction 6 (t), namely

0. + 0^ [p. - PÏ]

S (*) = r ^ \ (105)

t^t - ^t-li

Another reasonable choice for ô (t) might he

Ô(t) = Ô1 -I- Ô0 [Pt - Pt3 (106)

Eqxmtion (106) thus leads to

H - xt^i = ( 6 1 + Ô 0 [Pt - Pt3) tx| - xt^il (107)

Eqviation (lO?) s\jggests that if the difference between current and longrun equilibriimi demand is zero, no change in current demand is to be expected

even if current price is not eqvial to expected normal price* On the other

hand, equation (lOO) suggests that even if current demand is equal to long-run

equilibrium demand, some change may be expected in current demand as long as

current price differs from expected nonnal price. If we suppose that current

price's do influence demand, even though that influence may be slight, the formulation expressed by equation (lOO) seems somewhat more reasonable than that

expressed by equation (10?)• In any case, models which incorporate equations

of the form of (107) are exceedingly difficult to reduce by the methods outlined thus far.

An identification problem.—If the influence of ciirrent price or income

on current demand is negligible, an interesting "identification" problem

arises. Suppose that expected real income and the expected normal prices of

all commodities except the one in which we are interested are held constant;

then we have a system consisting of equations (99)> (32), and (23), that is,

we have:

XÏ = b PÎ (99)

PÎ - Pt-1 = ß [Pt - Pt-i3 (32)

H - ^t-l = 5 [x^ - x^.i] (23)

Comparison of (23) with either (lOO) or (107) shows that we assume that

Ô 0 = 0 and 61= ô • Solving the difference eqiaations (32) and (23) and

making the appropriate substitutions we have
.45-

xt =bß ô L (l-ô)*-^ X (1-ß) ^-^ P;x

= bß ô {p^ + [(l-ß) + (l-ô)] p^^l +

[(l-ß)2^ (1-ß) (1-5) + (1-5)2] p^^2 ^

[(l-ß )3 + (l.ß)2 (i.ô) + (1-ß ) (1.5)2^(1.0)3] p^_^3 ^ ..,| (108)

Comparison of equation (108) with equation (102) (see page ^^3) indicates that

a much simpler distribution of lag arises when the effect of curi^ent price is

assumed to be negligible. A difficulty also arises/ however.

The important thing to note about equation (108) is that ß and Ô enter

into the expression for x^ in terms of past prices in a way that is exactly

symmetric. The particular value of ß which we obseirve is the result of the

behavior of consumers when confronted by uncertainty about the future. If the

conditions \inder which that uncertainty exists change, then so will the value

of the parameter ß . Similarly, if technological or institutional factors

change, the parameter 5 may be expected to change. The fact that ß and 5

enter the relationship between current qiaantity demanded and past prices in a

symmetrical way means that we cannot distinguish the effects of changes in ß

from the effects of changes in 5.

The two need to be separated, however, inasmuch as the relationship of

c\arrent demand to past prices differs for different products and changes in

different ways depending on which type of lag predominates, the one due to

uncertainty or the one due to technological or institutional rigidities. If

the first type of lag were more important, we might expect differences among

products in the relationship between current demand and past prices to depend

in large part upon the characteristics of the market which consumers face and

upon the strength of their habits with regard to the individual commodities.

In this case, changes in these factors produce chsuiges in the relationship,

but changes in technological or institutional factors have little effect. On

the other hand, if the second type of lag.were more importstnt, differences in

the relationships among products depend on the ease with which one conamodity

may be substituted for another and other technological or institutional

factors.

Take, for example, an agricultural product like apples in comparison with

an industrial product like refrigerators. Presimiably, the typical variance of

apple prices about some normal level is greater than the variance of refrigerator prices, but apples can be more easily substituted for other commodities

than can refrigerators. If the distributed lag is due primarily to uncertainty, we might expect the distribution of lag to have a greater variance for

apples than for refrigerators; on the other hand, if the distributed lag is

due primarily to technological rigidities, we might expect the variance of the

distribution of lag to be greater for refrigerators than for apples.
- 46 .

The fact that ß and 6 enter (108) symmetrically thus leads to a problem

of identification which is similar to the type of identification problem considered in the theory of estimation of sim\iltaneous equation systems.

Exactly the same identification problem arises when we consider the reduced version of equation (108), that is, of the system (99)-(32)-(23). If

(99) is substituted into (23), the resiolt may be reduced by the multiple

equation method. The general form of the result is given by eqviation (97)

(see page ko); the specific reduced equation turns out to be

x^ = b ß Ô p^ + [(1- ß ) + (1- Ô )] x^.i - (1-ß ) (1-5) x^.2 (109)

Again, ß and ô enter this expression symmetrically. 19/

When Current Price Does Affect the Long-Run

Equilibrium Demand

Suppose we have a system of demand equations

^ï = r r^* (110)

*

where f ^ is a vector of long-run equilibrium quantities demanded or other

such variables, 7?* is a vector of expectational variables, and T is a matrix

of coefficients. The expectational equations correspond to equations (77)

(see page 36); they are

r)*= 6 77^+ (1-6) vtj^ (77)

where € is a diagonal matrix of coefficients of expectations. The relations

between current demand and long-run equilibriimi demand for the ith commodity

may be written

^it = P± ^it "^ (1- ^i) ^it-l

Hence, the complete set may be written in matrix fonn as

^^ = R ÎÎ + (I-R) f^^3^ (111)

where f^ is a vector of the current quantities demanded. Substituting (llO)

into (ill), we have

^^ = RT 77* + (i-R) ^^^^ (112)

19/ Equation (104) (see page ^3) presents much the same problem, only it is

not so apparent. Further discussion of the type of identification problem

posed by (l04) is left to the section on methods of statistical estimation.
^ kl.

Applying eqxaation (97) to the system consisting of equations (112) and (77) we

have

^^^ = R r 6 7? t + (I-R) ^t-1 "^

R r (i-€)r "V^^^^3^ -

R r (i-€)r "V^ (i-R) ^^^2

= Rr € 7]^ H-[(i-R) + Rr (i-€)r "V^l ^^.^

- R r (I- €)r -1R"^ (I-R) ^t-2 (^^3)

In this case, the matrices R and € do not enter eqiaation (113) symmetrically; hence, an identification problem of the sort described previously

does not arise- Other difficulties do arise, however, and are discussed in

the next section.

It is clear that the method of reduction used in the preceding example

applies to separable systems in general, and in particiilar to systems of demand equations which contain non-expectational variables; hence, the method

also applies when the difference between current and expected normal price has

an effect on the rate of change of current demand (see equation (lOO) on page

i^2).

METHODS OF STATISTICAL ESTIMATION

In this section we discuss two methods of estimating the parameters of

demand eqijations involving distributed lags: the first deals directly with an

equation involving a distributed lag; the second, with the reduced eqxiation of

such an equation or system of equations.

Consider the simple model of demand based on eqxaations (21) and (23):

xt = a + b p^ + u^ (21)

H - H-1 = S [xj - xt^3_], 0< Ô < 1 (23)

Note that we have added a residual term u^. to equation (21) to represent the

factors unaccounted for; the result is to make the system (21) and (23) a

statistical model as well as a mathenâtical one. 20/ As shown on pages I6-I8

equations (21) and (23) lead to the following demand equation containing a

distributed lag:

20/ In private correspondence. Professor L. R. Klein of the Oxford Institute

of Statistics has suggested that a residual term be added to the adjustment

eqimtion (23) as well as to the basic demand equation. His suggestion applies

equally to the expectational models discussed beginning on page 20. Such an

addition may introduce statistical problems of considerable complexity. It is

hoped that subsequent research will be devoted to these problems.
xt = a ^ b X Ô (1- Ô r^^ Px + wt (25)

where

t

wt = X 6 (1- 6 ) u^

X=0

Thus x^ is obtained as a function of past prices* This is a linear function,

but the parameter 6 does not enter it linearly, that is, the coefficients of

past prices are not themselves linear functions of the parameter ô .

A Method That Makes Direct Use of Equations

That Involve Distributed Lags

The first of the two methods discussed here attempts to estimate the

parameters a, b, and Ô directly in the context of an equation such as (25);

the method is similar to the short-cut method described by Fisher (15) for

calcillating a distributed lag. 21/

If ô were known, a and b could be estimated easily. Since 0 < 0^1,

the size of the weights for prices in the very distant past is negligible. In

fact the s\jm of the weights for the first N past observed prices is

1 Ml-ô )N-»-l = Sjj

and this can be made as close to one as we please by taking N large enough*

S^ clearly depends on the size of S : for very large ô , that is, 6 close to

one, only a few past prices need be included in order that Sjj differ from one

by an arbitrarily small amount. Thus, depending on the size of ô, all prices

after a certain point N years back receive negligible weight in the aggregate.

t

Hence, if ô is known the expression X 6 (l- 6) pr may be computed

X=0

from past prices with any desired degree of accuracy.

If 6 were known., the parameters a and b of eqviation (25) could be estimated by ordinary least squares provided the w^ were independently distributed. Since S is not known, another method must be employed.

Let us denote the weighted average of current and past prices at time t,

* t-X

X s (l- ô ) Px Í ^y P( ô )• Let b* be a vector (a, b), and ^ be a

X=0

21/ See page 10. The method discussed here is also ixsed by Cagan (¿) in his

study of hyper-inflations.
-U9 -

vector of observations on the observed quantity demanded and current and past

prices. Provided the w^ are normally and independently distributed, say with

mean zero and variance cr^^ the parajneters b* and ß can be estimated by

maximum-likelihood methods. 22/

Derivation of maximum likelihood coefficients.-«The likelihood function

to be maximized may be written

L(b*, 6 ; ^ ) = TT r-^ ^^P /- "^ ^H - a - b i^i Ô )]^ (lHv)

t=l V 2 TTCT \ 2G "" J

where T is the total number of observations. L is a complicated function of

b* and 6 , and it is not possible to solve analytically the equations obtained

by setting the derivatives of log L with respect to b* and ô equal to zero to

obtain b* and S Resort must be had to so-called stepwise maximization of

the f\mction L. 23/

Let us assume that L has a unique maximum with respect to b* and 6 for

every value of f Suppose now that we maximize L with respect to b* for each

Ô given f . We thus obtain b* as a flanction of 6 and ^ :

b* = b*(ô;^) (115)

where b^ is the value of b* that maximizes L given ô and ^ . Substituting

(115) into (lllf) we obtain

L(bM5 ; ^ ), 5 ; ^ ) = M(ô;^ ) (ll6)

where M is a function of ô and ^ only. The definition of M implies that

M(ô ; i ) > L(b*, S ; ^ ), for all b*, ô , and á' . (il?)

Now let us maximize M with respect to ô , obtaining a value of 8 , ô ( ^ ),

such that

M(ô (^); ^ ); > M( 5; ^ ), for all 6 and f . (ll8)

Comparison of (ll8) and (11?) indicates that if we define

inn ^ s*(ô(^); n (119)

we have

L(S*(^), 5(^); ^ ) = M(ô(^); f ) > L(b*, 6 ; ^) (120)

22/ The discussion that follows is adapted from Nerlove, op. cit>^ pp. 248-

25^

23/ This procedure is discussed in Koopmans and Hood (21, pp. 156-158).
- 50 -

for all b*, § , and Ç . Clearly, then, the values h* and ô obtained by stepwise maximization are the same as those obtained by simultaneous maximization

of L with respect to b* and 6 .

The value of b* which maximizes L given ô is simply the vector of least

squares estimates of a and b in equation (25). . For each value of 6 we may

compute these estimates and obtain a value of the function b*( Ô ; ^ ). Substitution of these values into L yields the function (M( 6 ; ^ ) which we seek

to maximize with respect to ô • But this must be done numerically. Ideally,

one shovild select successive values of Ô in such a way that, starting from

any ô ^^^, the successive values of 6 chosen converge to the value 6 for

which the function M reaches a maximum. Gradient methods of maximization, as

described by Chemoff and Divinsky (6, pp. 246-i|-9), do just this, but they

involve evaluating the first and second derivatives of the function M with

respect to 6 at the value Ô (i) for the ith step ;of the successive approximations to 8 . When the great complexity of M as a function of ô is recalled,

eval\aation of derivatives of M for particular values of ô does not appear

feasible.

Two alternatives are open: (l) We might compute values of M for particular values of ô each differing from the preceding value by some small

amount and find ô by graphical interpolation. This procedure is feasible in

the case under consideration, since ô is not a vector. Later we consider

cases, however, where a parameter such as ô may conveniently be considered

as a vector consisting of different components. In this case, graphical interpolation is not practical. (2) Instead, we might choose a small positive

number e. Then at each stage of the approximation we might increase or

decrease each component of 6 by an amoimt depending on the product of e and

the preceding increase of M divided by the increase or decrease of the component of ô in question. The vector of ratios is actiaally an approximation

to the derivative of M with respect to ô , so that this procedure is an

approximation to a strict gradient maximization.

In order to maximize M with respect to ô , we need not compute values of

M for different values of ô . The fxinction M is simply the likelihood function L in which the least sqxiares estimates of b*, for the given value of ô ,

is substituted. Now the logarithm of M is a monotonie increasing function of

M, so that log M reaches a maximum at the same value of ô for which M reaches

a maximimi. But

T

log M = - -|- log 2 7T (7 ^ ^ X [x+ - a - b p^( 6 )1^

^ 2a '^ t=l

Hence, M reaches a maximxam when

T

L

t=l

L [x^ - a - b p^(ô )f (121)
- 51 -

reaches a minimixtn. But (l2l) is the expression for the residual sum of

squares calculated by means of the least squares regression between x^ and

p+( 6 ) for a given 6. Hence M reaches a__maxim\mi for that value of 6 which

maximizes the correlation between x^ and p^( Ô ).

Use of the likelihood ratio test.—Strictly speaking, it is impossible in

generalato obtain confidence intervals for the estimates of the parameters of

a population distribution of known or assumed mathematical form, unless the

sampling distributions of those estimates are known. 24/ The estimates of a,

b, and ô are complicated fxmctions of the observations on the quantities demanded and prices; hence their sampling distributions cannot be obtained with

ease. Any point hypothesis, however, can be tested by means of the likelihood

ratio test.

The likelihood ratio is defined by

k = -i^ (122)

L( Q )

where L(W) is the maximum of L over the region of nxill hypotheses, and L( ß )

is the unrestricted maximum of L over the region of all alternative hypotheses. Under certain regularity conditions, the asymptotic distribution of -2

log ^ is the X ^ distribution with as many degrees of freedom as there are

restrictions on the maximum of L contained in the set of null hypotheses. 25/

The use of the likelihood ratio may be clarified by an example: Suppose

we wish to test the hypothesis that no more time than our unit period is required for consumers to adjust to their long-run equilibrium position, that

is, the hypothesis that 6=1. The maximimi-likelihood estimate of the variance

of the residual term w^ in equation (25) may be derived by stepwise maximization of the likelihood function. It is

T

S^ =-^ L [xt - a -Sit(8)]2 (123)

T

t=l

By the definition of R

2 = [1-R2(S )] â 2 (121^)

where R^ is the coefficient of correlation reached at 6 , and 5^ ^"5 *^® .2 ' ^ variance of x. Similarly a-, may be defined as the estimate of the residual

variance obtained by maximizing L for ô=:^l; it is

â2-^..2,.^^ .2 [l-R^(l)] a^^ (125)

24/ See Cramer (9, p. 507).

25/ See Wilks (3^, pp. 151-152)
- 52

From equation (ll4) we have

log (w) = -' -^ log 2 77 a -^^

Similarly

log L(Q) = - -5- log 2 7r a '^ -

T

—i^ X [x^ - â . b P^d)]^ (126)

2cr "^ t=l

T

^ L [xt - a - b i^( S)]2 (127)

2 Cr ^ t=l

It follows from equations (126)-(127) that

-2 log \ = T log a ^^ - T log 5- ^

= T log [1-R2(1)] - T log [1-R2( 8 )] (128)

Using a one-tail test we find the value of X^ for which the cumulative for

one degree of freedom equals 0.95; call this value X^(1)Q;QC. Then if

T log [1-R^( §)] < T log [1-R2(1)] +X2(1)Q Q5 (129)

we reject the null hypothesis ô =1; otherwise we accept the hypothesis that

consumers are always in long-run equilibrium.

Hypotheses concerning particular values which b* may take also may be

tested by means of the likelihood ratio. In addition, what might be called

conditional confidence intervals can be obtained for a or b given the particular estimated value of ô . This conditional confidence interval is obtained

in the usual way from the least squares regression of x^ and Pt( 6 ). The

problem is to determine the appropriate number of degrees of freedom to use in

computing the interval. Since § is not given but has in fact been estimated,

the usual confidence interval for a or b at a level of significance a is too

small, or, what is the same, the interval obtained involves a level of significance less than a . Bearing these facts in mind, however, these conditional

confidence intervals may prove a useful tool in the evaluation of results.

Prevalence of serial correlation in the residuals.--The method just

described requires a large nixmber of repeated steps; for this reason we call

it the "iterative" method of estimation. In the case under discussion (in

which the distributed lag is assumed to be due solely to rigidities of a technological or institutional nature), it is necessary to assiime that the

residuals, w^, of equation (25) are normally and independently distributed in

order to derive the iterative method. Thus the residuals of the equation containing a distributed lag are assxamed not serially correlated. This will be

true, however, only imder special conditions: The w^ are uncorrelated serially

only if the residuals, u^, of the original demand equation follow a complicated autoregressive scheme:
- 53 -

ut = - r (1-0)^-^ u. + €t (130)

x=o

where €t is normally and independently distributed. If the ut do not follow

(130), but rather are serially uncorrelated as is usually assumed, it can be

shown that the w^ are positively serially correlated• 26/ Thus, use of the

iterative procedure in the case \mder consideration may introduce serial correlation. This point is further discussed beginning on page 75,

Application to a general case.--Application of the iterative method to

more general cases offers no further difficulty beyond that connected with

serial correlation. Equation (29) gives the general form of a demand equation

with distributed lags due to technological or institutional rigidities. All

prices and income enter with the same distributed lag. Consequently, in the

derivation of the iterative method, 6 may be still considered as a scalar,

but b* should now be considered as a vector (a, b^, b2, ..•> bj^, c). Because

the iterative method rests on variation of the parameter Ô , the fact that Ô

is a scalar is of utmost importance in determining the feasibility of using

the iterative method. In the case in which distributed lags are due to technological or institutional rigidities, the iterative procedure is computationally feasible, but, as is shown below, when the distributed lags are of an

expectational nature the iterative procedure is computationally feasible only

in the simplest cases.

26/ The proof of this assertion is as follows

t

hence

w^. = 2: 6(1-8 )*-^ u;^

X=0

w^.l = X, 6 (l-ô)t-^ u^

x=o

If the u^ are independently distributed, then for i, j, =0, ..., t, ..., oo

r= 0 , for i j^ j

^ "t-i "t-j <. p

= a*^ , for i = j

u

P p

where a^^ = E u^ ; hence, provided t is large enough.

E w, w,., =-Alii^ 0^2

1-il-bf

since 0 < ô < 1. Clearly, then E v^ wt_i > 0. By a similar proof we can

show that E w-^ W^^.J; > 0 for all i. For further details, see page 78.
- ^ -

Application \mder conditions of uncertainty when current price and income

do not affect current demand.—Consider the case in which the distributed lag

is of an expectational nature and current price or current income does not

affect the current quantity demanded. In this case the original demand equation may be written

xt = a + bi p* + ci yt -f ut (l3l)

where u^ is a random residual. 27/ The expectational equations necessary to

complete the system are (32) and (33):

Pt - Pt-1 = ß [Pt - Pt-ll (32)

yt - yt-1 = ^ fyt - yí-i^ (33)

Equations (l3l)> (32), (33) lead to the following demand equation with distributed lags:

t

x^ = a + bi L ß(l-ß)^-^ p

\=0 X

t

+ ci X a (1- a)*- ^ y^ + u-t (132)

\=0

Two points about (132) are noteworthy: (l) the distributed lags for the

two independent variables, price and income, are different, and (2) the residual term in (132) is the same as the residual term in eqiaation (131). In

order to use the iterative method, therefore, we must iterate on variations in

a vector ß*=(ß,cx) rather than on variations in a scalar parameter.

On the other hand, no additional difficulties due to serial correlation

are introduced by the use of the iterative method per se; If serial correlation is present in the residuals of equation (l3l)^ it will also be present in

(132); but if it is absent in the residxials of (l3l)^ it will not be introduced by the iterative method into the residuals of the equation estimated,

that is, (132). The addition of additional expectational variables to the

system defined by equations (l3l)^ (32), and (33)> poses no further conceptual

problems. It is clear, however, that the computational difficulties are

greatly increased.

Application vinder conditions of uncertainty when current price or income

affects current demand.—^An interesting case arises when current prices or

current income is assumed to affect the current quantity demanded. The resulting demand equation with distributed lags is equation (37) plus a random

residual term when only one price is assxmied relevant:

27/ Equation (l3l) should be compared with equation (36) (see page 2^). Note

that bQ and CQ of (36) are assumed to be zero.
- 55 -

t-l

x^ = a -f (bo + biß ) p^ + bi' X ß (1- ß )*- ^ p;^ +

t-1 . .

(CQ + cia) y^ + ci L CL (l-a)^"'' y. + u^ (37)

t-l t-1

If p*.3^( ß) - X ß (1- ß)*-^ px and yt.i( a) ^ E a (l-a )*" ^ , then

(37) may be written

x^ = a + (bQ + bj^ ß ) p^ + bjL PÎ.I( ß )

+ (CQ + cj^a ) y^ + c^ y*,i( a ) + u^ (133)

If the iterative method is applied to equation (133)^ we obtain estimates

of a, bo^ bjL, CQ, C^, ß , and a * Estimates of bg and cg, however, must be

obtained indirectly from the estimates of the coefficients of current price

and income and estimates of b^, c^, ß , and a • This case shows that it is

possible to include nbn-expectational variables in the demand equation when

the iterative method is used, and that doing so involves no great increase in

conç)utational difficulty. 28/ If the non-expectational variables are not current values of the expectational variables, all coefficients can be estimated

directly by the iterative method.

Application to models that involve both rigidities and uncertainty.—

Application of the iterative method to equations containing distributed lags

of both an expectational and technological or institutional nature poses grave

difficulties. These difficulties are due to the identification problem discussed beginning' on page kk.

Consider the statistical model implied by equations (99), (32), and (33):

4 = '^ Pt + ^ (99)

where u^ is a random residual;

PÍ - PÎ.I = ß [Pt - PÎ-I] (32)

^t • H-1 = 6 [x^ - x^.-^] (33)

28/ The iterative method in this case is no longer maximum-likelihood, however. In order to obtain maximvim-likelihood estimates, current price and

current income should be included in p*( ß) and y*( a), respectively.
- 56 -

Solution of these equations by the approach outlined in the preceding section

gives :

x^ =b ß Ô [p^ + [(l-ß) -f (1-Ô)] Pt-i +

[(l.ß)2+ (l-ß) (l-ô) + (1-6)2] p^^^^

[(l-ß)3 -H (l-ß)2 (l-ô) + (l.ß) (1-0)2+ (1.6)3] p^^^^

• .. + X ô (l-ô )^-^ u;^ (13^)

Because of the introduction of technological or institutional rigidity,

problems of serial correlation may arise if (13^) is estimated by the iterative procedure as it may not be reasonable to assume that the residual term in

t

(134), L 0(1-0)*^"^ \x\, is serially uncorrelated• This difficulty is

X=0

not, however, the most important.

By choosing pairs of ß and Ô in such a way that the series of weights

for past prices entering (13^) 6onverges to zero as we go progressively

farther back in time, we could, in principle, estimate equation (13^) by the

iterative method. 29/ As noted above, however, ß and & enter the weights of

prices symmetrically. This means that the maximum correlation between the

current quantity demanded and prices with respect to variations in ß and ô

is achieved at two points in the (ß , ô^) plane. Thus if one maximum is

achieved at the point ß = ß and ô = S , the other maximum, which equals the

first, is achieved at ß == S and ô = ß . Hence, having reached a maximum

29/ A sufficient, but not necessary, condition that the weights in (13^)

converge is that

|l- ß + 1- ô I < 1

since, after the weight of price lagged one year, the terms of the weight

series are all less than the corresponding terms of the series

[1-ß + 1- ô]^ i=0, 1, ..., CO

It is plausible, a priori, that this should be the case. Since 0 ^ ß ,

ô < 1, the condition implies that

ß + Ô > 1

Unless rigidity is extraordinary, this is reasonable.
- 57 -

with respect to the variation of two parameters, it is impossible to tell

which parameter belongs to equation (32) and which to equation (33)• It is

clear, however, that the coefficient b can be estimated without difficulty by

the iterative method.

When current price, as well as the long-r\an equilibrium quantity demanded, affects the rate of change of current demand, identification problems

of this sort do not arise. But, as suggested by equation (102), the distribution of lag is extraordinarily complicated, so that it is difficult, if not

impossible, to use the Iterative method.

If it is possible to find a relevant non-expectational variable which

enters the demand equation, no identification problem arises: Consider the

system consisting of equations (32), (33) aj^d the demand equation

^t = ^ Pt + ^ H •*" ^t (^35)

where z-j^ is the non-expectational variable and u^ is a random residual. Equations (32), (33) a-nd (135) lead to the following demand equation containing

distributed lags:

xt = b ß Ô X (1-0)^^^ L (l-ß)f'-^ p

M.=0 X;=0 k

t t

c6 E (1-0)^"^- ^ ^ ¿; 0(1-0 )^-f^ u,, (136)

¡a=0 ^ fJi-0 ^

Provided the residual term in (136) can be reasonably assumed normally and independently distributed, the parameters of (136) may be estimated by the

iterative method. The distribution of lag in z contains only the parameter

Ô ; hence, no problem arises in distinguishing between the two pgirameters ß

and Ô . The computations involved in using the iterative procedure, however,

are laborious^ since iteration must be performed on a pair of parameters.

A Method That Makes Use of Single Reduced Equations

We have seen that, except in the simplest cases, extraordinary computational difficulties are encountered if the iterative method is used. Consequently we turn now to a non-iterative method which results in fewer difficulties of a computational nature. This method rests on estimation of the

reduced equations discussed extensively beginning on page 17.

Application when only rigidities are involved.—If a distributed lag is

due only to rigidities of a technological or institutional nature, estimation

is simple. Consider the model based on equations (23) and (28):
- 58

n

i=l

where u-^^ is a random residual;

H - H-1 == 5 t^ - H-l^ (23)

Substitution of (28) into (23) leads to

n

x^ = a 6 + r ^±b Pit •*• ^ S yt

i=l

+ (1-6) x^.i + Ô ut (137)

The residual term of (137)^ Ô u^, is much simpler than the residual term

which would appear in the equation corresponding to (l37)> (25) page 19, if

the former contains a distributed lag, namely

t

wt = X 6 (1-6)^-^ u^

As remarked on page 53> if the u^ are serially uncprrelated, w^ tends to

be positively serially correlated. It is clear, however, that if u^ is serially uncorrelated, so will ô u^ be; hence no additional difficulties with

serial correlation are introduced if the parameters of the reduced equation

are estimated rather than the parameters of the demand equation containing a

distributed lag.

Equation (137) suggests that we run a regression of the following form:

n . . H = '^o »- ^ ""i Pit + "^ 2 yt + ""3 ^t-1 + ^t (138)

i=l

If the residuals v^ are uncorrelated with the p^^^ yt^ ^^^ ^t-l> ^^ well as

serially iincorrelated, the parameters of (138)' inay be estimated by oixiinary

least squares. Let the estimated values of TTQ, TTQ^V^) (i=l, 2, ..., n), TT 2

and no be denoted by n Q, ír-|^(i) (i=l, 2, ..., n), 7^2 ^^^ ^ 3> respectively;

then for estimates of a, b^ (i=l, ..., n) c, and 6 we have:
59 •

a =

c =

1-7T O

1- 7? q

l-n

8 = 1-^

(1=1, ...y n)

> (139)

An ordinary confidence interval may be constructed for the estimate of

h ,' $ , "but special methods must be used for the other estimates, a, ^^ (i=l^

..., n), and c. A method by which the variances and covariances of the estimates listed in (139) ^^J ^^ obtained is discussed by Klein (20, pp. 258-261).

Application to models based on uncertainty.—The situation becomes somewhat more complicated if distributed lags of an expectational nature are considered. Reduced demand equations containing distributed lags of an expectational nature may be obtained either by the single eqioation method or by the

multiple equation method. As noted on pages ifl-42, for statistical purposes

the important distinction between distributed lags of an expectational nature

and those due to technological or institutional rigidities is that the latter

distributions of lag are the same for every variable in a given equation and

different for the same variable in different demand equations, while the

former are different for every variable in the same equation and the same for

the same variable in different equations. The peculiar characteristics of

distributed lags of an expectational nature lead to statistical complexities.

Consider the model defined by equations (l3l), (32), and (33);

x^ = a + bi p^ + ci y| + u^

H - Pt-1 = ß tPt -- Pt-l^

^t - yt-1 = ^ t^t - yt-i^

(131)

(32)

(33)

If these equations are reduced by the single equation method, a consianption

function is not needed to complete the system. When we make use of equations

(51)-(56), we have as the reduced form of the above system
- 6o -

x^ = a a ß + b^ ß Pt + cj^ a yt -

bi (1-a ) ß pt^i . ci oc (l-ß ) y^^j^ +

[(1-a) + (l-ß)] x^.i - (l-a) (1- ß) x^.2 +

u^ - [ (1- a ) + (1- ß )] ut.i + (1- a) (1- ß ) ut.2 30/ (l4o)

An important point to note about (l4o) is its residual term- If v^ is

defined as

ut - [(1-oc) + (1-ß )] ut.i + (1- oc) (1« ß) ut.2 (1^1)

then the v^ are serially uncorrelated only if the ut follow the following

autoregressive scheme:

Ut = [(1-oc) + (1-ß)] u^.i - (l-a) (1-ß) ut«2 -^ ^t (1^2)

where 6 ^ is independently distributed. Second-order serial correlation as

well as first-order must be assumed in the residuals u-^^ of the original demand

equation in order to make the estimates of the parameters in the singleequation reduced equation unbiased and statistically efficient. (See page 80.)

Comparison of the iterative method in this case shows that no additional difficulties with serial correlation are introduced by its use, whereas such

difficiilties may be introduced by the non-iterative method imder discussion.

When the single-equation method of reduction is used on demand equations

containing three or more expectational variables, estimation by the noniterative method becomes extremely difficult. As indicated on page 31> if n

expectational variables are included in the original demand equation, the

single equation reduced equation contains rfi more variables' than the original

equation. If non-expectational variables sis well as expectational variables

are included in the original demand equation, the situation becomes even more

complex: If the original equation contains n expectational variables and m

30/ Comparison of equation (l4o) with equation (56) (see page 29) shows the

effect of the addition of a constant term ajid a random residual term to the

basic equation when the single equation method of reduction is used: The

effect is to define new variables y^ = x^ - a - u^, y^.^^ = -^t-l "" a - u^.^^

yt-2 = ^t-2 - a - ut-2* Substitution of these for x-^^, x^.j, and ^t^2> ^^""

spectively, in equation (56) yields equation (l4o).
• 61 .

non-expectational variables, the single equation reduced form equation contains n^ + m more variables than the original equation, 31/

As a special case of this proposition we have the result that when the

current quantity demanded depends on both the current and expected normal

values of n expectational variables, the reduced demand equation contains

n(n+l) more variables than the original eq-uation. In addition to the great

difficulties with the number of independent variables, the single-equation

method also introduces increasing difficulties with possible serial correlation as the nimiber of variables in the original eqioation becomes larger. Only

in the simplest of cases should the non-iterative method be based on the

single equation reduced eqixation.

The case discussed beginning on page 59 is simple enough to warrant further discussion. Equation (l4o) suggests a regression of the form

^t = ""O "^ ^11 ï^t + ^12 yt + ^21 Pt-1 + '^ 22 yt-1 +

77" 31 ^t-l + ^32 ^t-2 "*" ^t (1^3)

Estimates of the parameters a, b^, c^^, ß , and a may be derived from estimates of the TTS in (1^3)- Let the estimated value of a parameter be denoted

by placing a hat over it, " A"^ then one such set of estimates is

ß = 1 +

s = 1 +

22

^^12

TTgl

,7 11

a =

TTQ

31/ This fact may be derived from eqviation (6l) by setting yt = x^ -

m

p ^i<lit^ where the q^^ are non-expectational variables, and substituting y^,

^t-1' etc., everywhere for x^, x. ,, etc.
- 62

bi =

^11

TT 22

1 +

12

Cl =

^12

1 + -^ (l41f)

The estimates indicated by (l^^i-) represent only one possible set of such

estimates, however- If ß is estimated by 1 + ^22/^12 ^^^^ "^^^ alternative

estimates of a may be obtained in addition to the estimate in (l^^), one from

77 01 and one from n -^2* Consequently, two additional estimates of a, b-j^, and

ci may be obtained using these two estimates of a . Similarly, if oc is estimated by 1 + ÎÎ 21/^ 11^ ^^^ additional estimates of ß may be obtained. In

addition, a quadratic in n oj^ and í? ^2 ^^^ ^^ solved to yield two pairs of

estimates of ß and a . Clearly, the set of estimates exhibited is only one

among several possible sets; it is, however, the simplest of these sets and

the least open to statistical difficulties. The variances and covariances of

the estimates may be obtained by a method outlined by Klein (20, pp. 258-261).

A Method That Makes Use of Multiple

Reduced Equations

Because of the difficulties involved in using the single reduced equation

approach, it is usually advisable to use the mxiltiple reduced equation method

to make estimates. If, however, the distribution of lag for the same variable

in different equations cannot be assxmied the same, the multiple-equation

method of reduction cannot be used. If the lags are not solely of an expectational nature, they tend to differ in different equations, so that the

single equation method must be used. The value of thé single equation method

lies primarily in its wider range of applicability. If the multiple equation

method can be used, use of reduced equations derived by it renders the noniterative method of estimation much simpler computationally.

A simple example.—Consider the system defined by the following

equations :

^It = ^11 Pit + ^12 P2t -*• ^It

^2t = ^21 Pit + ^22 P2t + ^2t

Plï= ßlPlt-»- (1-ßl) Pltl

P2t = ß 2 P2t "*" (1- ß 2) P2t-1

\> (1^5)
- 63 -

xt = ^ P* + "t

In matrix form, this systam of eqtiations may be written

(11^6)

Pi = ß Pt+(l-ß) PÎ-i

where x^ is a vector (x-^^^ '*^2t)'^ Pt -^^ ^ vector (p^t^ P2t)'> ^t ^^ ^ vector

(u^^, Ug^), B is a matrix

^11 ^12

^21 "^22 7

ß is a matrix

ß

and p^ is a vector (Pit^ P2t)'• ^® reduced version of (1^6), obtained by the

multiple equation method, is

x^ = B ß P^. + B(I- ß )B"^ x^_-L +

ut - B(I- ß )B-1 ut.i (147)

Equations (1^7) suggest two regressions of the form

^It = "ir^ Pit + ^A^^ P2t + ^11^^ ^lt-1 + ^12^^ ^2t-l + ^It

(l48)

^2t = ^2^^ Pit + ^2^"^^ P2t + ^2P^ ^lt-1 + ^2^^^ X2t-1 + V2t

or, in matrix form,

xt = n(i) p^ + n<2) x^.i + vt (149)

A complicated problem of serial correlation in the residuals of (l48) or

(1^9) may arise: Only if the residuals u^ follow a very complicated autoregressive scheme,

u^ = B(I. ß )B-1 u^.^ + €^ (150)

are the residuals v^ serially imcorrelated. Equation (150) implies only first

order serial correlation, as contrasted with equation (l42) above, but the

current residuals from one demand equation must be correlated not only with

their own lagged values but also with the lagged residxials of other demand

equations. When the single equation method of reduction is used, successively

higher order serial correlation must be assumed in the residuals of the
original demand equation as more expectational variables are included. On the

other hand, the multiple equation method never results in having to assume

more than first order serial correlation. Furthermore, if the residimls of

the original demand equations are in fact serially uncorrelated, the single

equation method of reduction introduces serial correlation in the residuals of

the reduced equation of successively higher orders; whereas, the multiple

equation method introduces it only to the first order.

Estimates of the parameters of equations (1^5) or (l46) may he derived

from estimates of the parameters of equations (iW) or (1^9). As before, let

the sign "A " over a parameter denote Its estimated value, then, since

n(i) = Bß

n^^) = B(i-ß)B'

(151)

we have

B = (i-n(2))-i n(i)

ß = n(i)-i (I- n(2)) n(i) ^ ^^^'^

Note, however, that unless the estimates of n ^^^ and n^^^ are restricted in

some way, the estimated matrix ß is not necessarily diagonal, even though the

matrix ,Ç is diagonal.^ Under the type of assimiptions normally made, the offdiagonal elements of ß might be taken to indicate the effects of current and

past prices of other commodities upon the expected normal price of a given

commodity. 3^/

As in other examples, the standard errors of the estimates^ and p inight

be derived from the variances and covariances of the estimates H (1) and 11(2)

by a method suggested by Klein (20, p. 258).

The general case when the original equations are separable.--The general

case oF'a system such as that represented in (1^5) offers no difficulties beyond those previously encoxmtered. Some interesting res\ilts are obtained,

however, when the system of original equations is separable (see page 36). A

separable system may be written

^t

2t

(153)

32/ In previous work on multiple equation reduction in connection with the

study of agricxiltural supply functions, off-diagonal elements of ß were

typically close to zero as compared with the diagonal elements even though no

restrictions were placed on the estimates of 11 (l) or 11 v^)^ See Nerlove,

op. cit., p. 285»
- 65 -

where x^ and z^ are vectors of quantities demanded or other non-expectational

variables, B, D, A are matrices of coefficients, p* and q* ^^^ vectors of expectational variables, and u^ and v^ are vectors of random residual terms.

The expectational equations needed to complete this system are

(i-ß) 0

0 (I-a)

(15M

As indicated by equation (84) (see page 37), the reduced form of (153) and

(154) is

"'] -(^Bß Da \

/Pt

H) \. 0

A a / V^t

"B(I- ß)B-1

0

-]-B(I- ß)B"^DA~^ + D(I- a)A"^

A(l-a)A"^

'u+

B(l-ß)B-l

0

-B(I- ß )B"%A"1 + D(I- a)A"^

A(I- a)A-l

u.t-1

't-1, (155)

Equations (155) and (153) each represent sets of equations; the partitioning of the matrices represents a partitioning of the sets of eqviations

into two sub-sets. The second of these sub-sets, obtained either from (153)

or (154), may be used to eliminate some of the expectational variables, namely

the q^. Hence the first subse-^ of eqxjations of (l55) may be written

-li x^. = (B ß , DA--^)

Pt

(B(I- ß)B-1, - B(I- ß)B-^ DA-1)

^t-1

't-1.

u^ - B(I- ß)B-l "t-l - S(l-ß )B'-'- DA-1 v^._-L + DA-1 (156)
. 66 -

Equation (156) may be obtained either by eliminating q* from equation (153)

and reducing the equation so obtained or by eliminating q;^ from equations

(155) (see page 39)-

Equation (155) suggests a set of regressions which may be written in

matrix form

^t = n-L3^ Pt + nj^2 <lt + "13 xt^i + nj^4 z^.i + Wit

z = n 22 q^ + n 24 Zfl "^ ^2t

> (157)

whereas equation (156) suggests a set of regressions which may be written in

the matrix form

^t = n^î vt + n^* z^ + n^l x^^-^ + n-^î z^^^ ^ w^J (158)

Although set (l57) involves almost the same variables as set (158)^ the two

sets of regressions cannot be interpreted in the same way. In order that the

residual vector w^-^ be serially \mcorrelated, the vector of residuals u-^ must

follow the autoregressive scheme

u^ = B(l-ß )B~^ u^.i - [B(l-ß )B"^ DA"-^ +

D(l-a)A"l] v^.i -»- ^ t (159)

whereas, in order that the vector of residual terms w^^ be serially uncorrelated, the residuals u^ must be correlated not only with lagged values of

themselves and v^ but also with current values of the residuals v^, that is,

ut = -DA-1 vt + B(l-ß )B-1 ut-i -

B(I- ß )B"1 DA"3- V:^^^ + 6 ^ (l6o)

Hence, if the regressions set forth in (158) are run and the u-^ do not follow

(l6o) to a first approximation, the true residuals of the fitted equations

tend to be both serially correlated and correlated aÄong themselves.

Estimates of all the parameters of the original equations, (153) and

(15U), may be derived only from estimates of the parameters in eq\iations (157)-

Estimates of only some of the parameters of (153) and (15^) inay be derived

from estimates of the parameters in equations (158). One of several possible

sets of estimates of all the parameters of (153) and (15^) is
- 67 -

p = ñ i^-i (I- ñ 13) ñ 11

â = n gg'""" (I- "21+) ñgg

B = (I- 0^3) n 11 ^

.-1 -1 D = (I- ni3)"-^ t ni2 + (I- n24) n22 niui

Â = (I- n^k)-1 n 22

(161)

Only B and ß may "be obtained from the estimates of the parameters in (158).

We may write the following matrix equations in these estimates:

(162a)

(l62b)

ñ * ^^ 11 = eß

ni2 = D A"-*-

nii3_3* = B(l-ß )B-^

n * — -B(l-ß )£" ' D Â"l

(l62c)

(l62d)

We have four equations to solve for the four xmknown matrices B, ß ^ D, and A,

but these equations are either not independent or not consistent^ In particular, (l62d) may be derived from (l62b-c), provided n^íf = ft j^* n^^l* Equations (l62a) and (l62c) may be solved in the usual way for B and ß . 33/ This

particular difficulty does not occur if the separable system is the special

case of non-expectational variables in the^original equations. In general,

though, imless we are interested only in ß and B, system (157) should be

estimated in preference to system (158).

On page 36 we pointed out that a set of demand eqxiations containing both

expectational and non-expectational variables is actually a special case of a

separable system. The same is true in the context of a statistical model. If

the q-t = zt ^^^ non-expectational variables, the matrices A and a are

identity matrices and the residuals v^ are all zero; hence the reduced equations are

33/ Under special circumstances, an assumption concerning either D or A can

be made which sunnounts this difficulty. See page 57 on ,the inclusion of nonexpectational variables and page 109 on Friedman's permanent income hypothesis.
- 68 -

(B(l-ß)B-^, -B(l-ß)B-lD) +

ut - B(I- ß )B-1 ut.i (163)

Not only are the additional difficulties with intercorrelation removed in this

special case of equation (I56), 3^/ hut equations J[l62a-d) may he used to

derive estimates of B, ß , and D from ni^i^ ^12> ^13 ^^^ ^ví*

Application to models that involve hoth rigidities and uncertainty.—

Separability of an equation system becomes especially useful when we deal with

models that involve distributed lags due both to xmcertainty ahout the future

and to technological or institutional rigidities.

Consider the model consisting of equations (99)> (32), and (23):

4 == ^ pt + ^t (99)

H - Pti = ß [Pt - Ptil (32)

^t - H-1 = ^ tx* . x^^^] (23)

Note that a random residual term has been added to (99)* ^^^ reduced equation

of the system (99).(32)-(23) is

xt = b ß 8 pt + [(1- ß) + (1-8 )] xt«! -

(1. ß)(l- 8) x^.2 + 8 [ut - (1-ß ) u^^il (iSk)

For this equation, the residual term 8 [u^ - (l- ß) u^-i] tends to be

serially imcorrelated only if there is positive first order serial correlation

among the residuals xx-^. Second, as noted on page k6, the parameters ß and 8

enter (l64) symmetrically (except on the residual tenn), and this produces a

difficulty in estimation. Equation (l6k) suggests a regression of the following form

H = ^ 1 Pt + ^2 ^t-1 + ^3 ^t-.2 + ^t (165)

Estimates of ß and 8 may be ohtained from the estimates of the parameters of

(165) in the following way: Let n 2 an<ä ^ 3 denote the least squares estimates

of -^2 ^^^ '^ 3* Comparison of (165) and {16k) shows

3^/ See equation (160) and the text beginning on page 6k.
- 69 -

ß or S =1 —^ — (166)

If ß is given by the root taken with the plus sign, S is given by the root

taken with the minus sign, and conversely. Hence, two pairs of estimates of

ß and S may be obtained from a regression based on (l65), A unique estimate

of b may, however, be obtained from such a regression. The product of ß and

S may be estimated by 1-'^ Q^*^ 3^ so that

1- TT 2~ ''' O

This model may be generalized by making use of equations (llO), (77) and

X = e v^ +(!-€) vl_^ (77)

it = R i Î + (I-R) i t.i (111)

Note that a vector of random residvials has been added to (llO). Following the

method of reduction leading to equation (113) (see page 47), we have

ç^ = Rr6rit4. [(I-R) +Rr(i.€)r-V^] E. ^^^ .

Rr(i«6)r"V^ (i-R) Ç ^^2 + Rt^t - ^ (I- ^^^'^ ^t-i^ (^^®)

Since R is a diagonal matrix, the residuals of (l68) are serially imcorrelated

only if the residuals u^ follow the autoregressive scheme

u^ = r (l-6)r-^ u^^l + e^ (169)

which is the same condition as for a model involving • only distributed lags due

to uncertainty.

Equation (168) suggests a set of regressions which may be written

^ t = "l ^t -*• "2 - t-l + "3 ^t-2 + ^t (170)

where
- 70 -

v^ = R[ut - r (i-€)r-iut.i]

The following equations may^be solved for the matrix of estimated values of

each set of parameters F, R, and € :

ñi = R r € (171a)

n g = (I-R) + R f (I- € ) f -1R-1 (171b)

n^ = Rf (l-€)f'%^ (I-R) (171c)

Substituting (171b) into (l71c) we have

ñg = (ñg - (I-R) )(I-R) (172)

which is a qx;iadratic in the matrix (l-R). The individual equations from (l72)

are of the form

^(3)iJ= ^2)ij (1-^j) - (l->i)^ (173)

Where p ^ is the ith diagonal element of the diagonal matrix R, and ^ (3)ij

and n (2)iJ ^^^ typical elements of the matrices ft ^ and fig^ respectively.

These equations cannot in general be solved ifp±f p ¿ for all i ?^ j; hence,

(172) cannot be used to estimate the matrix R from estimates of the matrices

IIl> 112, and II^. 35/ If it were possible to estimate R, equations (l71a-c)

could be used to estimate F and €. The reader will see, however, that each

of the equations^derived from (iTlar-c) other than (172) contains more than one

of the matrices R, f, or € , making the derivation of estimates difficult;

hence, equation (170) does not represent a very firuitfia set of regression?

for estimation purposes.

If the system of original demand equations is a separable system, however, the situation is different. If a system of demand eqioations is separable it can be written

^t,

where x*, z*, p*, q*, u^, and v^ are vectors, and B, D, and A are matrices.

The expectational equations may be written

0 a/ \ qt/ \ ^ ^"^^

where ß and a are diagonal matrices of coefficients of expectations.

35/ This was the difficulty alluded to in the. text on page k6.
- 71 -

If the current values of the expectational variables are assumed to have

no effect on the rate of change of the current qusmtities demanded, we may

write the relationship between the ciorrent quantities and the long-run equilibrivun quantities as

^t R

0

Xt-1

't-1,

(176)

where R and S are diagonal matrices whose elements lie between zero and one.

Applying multiple equation reduction to the equation obtained by substituting

(17^1-) into (176) and equation (175), we have

'I-R

0 I-S,

'RB(I- ß )B"%1«-1 RB(I- P)B~1DA-1S"1

+ RD(I- a)A-ls'l

SA(l-a)A-ls-l

'RB(I- ß )B~-'-R -1T,-1

0

RB(l-ß )B~^DA"^-1

+ RD(I-a)A-ls-l

SA(I-a)A-ls-l

H-2

't-2

'R 0

,0 S

- B(I-ß )B"1DA-1

+ D(l-a)A-l

A(l-a)A"l

t-1

t-1/

(177)

Equation (177) s\iggests two sets of regressions of the following form

and

^t = "li^^ Pt + ni(^> qt + ngi^) xt.i +

"22^^ H-l + "3(1) xt.2 + ^i^l H-2 + 4^^

H = n J^) qt + n^is) ^^_^ ^ 03(2) ^^_2 + w[2)

Provided the residuals u^ and v^ follow the autoregressive schemes

u^ = B(I- ß )B~^ u^^-L - [B(I- ß )B-^DA-^

(178a)

(178b)

+ D(l-a)A-l] v^_^ + € It (179a)
- 72 -

and

v^ = A(I- a)A-^ vt_i + €2t (I79t)

the matrices of coefficients in (l78a-b) may be estimated by ordinary least

squares. Estimates of the matrices of parameters in the eqijations (174),

(175)Í and (176) may be derived from these estimates solely by the solution of

linear equations.

From (177) and (l78a-b) we have the following equations:

n ^(1) = RB p (l80a)

n ^(1) = RDâ (l80b)

n gil) = I-R + RB(I- ß)B-lR-l (l80c)

n 2^^^ = -RB(I-ß)B-lDA-^S-l + RD(I- ôi)Â-^S-^ (l80d)

n ^(1) = -RB(I-ß )B-^r^ (I-R) (l80e)

n (1) = RB(I-ß)B-1DÂ-1S-1 (I-S) - RD(I- â)Â-ls-l (I-S) (l80f)

n ^(2) = (i-ê) + sÂ(i- S)Â-is-i (i8oh)

n 2^^) = -sÂ(i-5)Â-is-i (i-s) (i8oi)

We have nine eqxiations to solve for the seven unknown matrices, B, 5, A, ß ,

5. , "k, and S; hence, more than one solution may be possible.

One possible solution to (l80a-i) may be obtained as follows: Equations

(l80d) and (l8öf) lead to

n^^i) = [^(I-^)B-IDÂ-IS-I - RD(I-â)â-1S-1] (I-S) = -^^"^ (i-s)

So that

S = I + n^^i^-i n^g (l8la)

Hence, S can be estimated and we can use S for S in subsequent calculations.
- T3 -

From equations (l80g) and (l80i) we have

SO that

Â = s-i (I + n^is))-^ n J2) (i8ib)

s may be substituted in (l8lb) from (l8la) to give an estimate of A¿ hence Â

can be used in place of A in subsequent calculations. Since S and Â are knovn

we have from (l80g) that

â = Â-ig-i n ^(2) (3^3^ç.j

Hence, â can be used for a in subsequent calcxxlations. From equations

(l80d), (l80b), and (l80a), we have

SÂ ñoo''"^ 22 = ^(i- ^) - RB(i- ß )B"'^^

= RD - n^(i) - RD + n^[i) D

= n (1) D - n (1) 11 " 12

hence

D = n^fi)"*^ (n Ji) + SÀ n^^^)) (i8id)

Since S and Â are knovn from (l8la) and (l8lb), D can be estimated from

(l8ld)* From equation (l80b) we have

R = n^(l) a-^D"^ (l8le)

Since D and à are known from (l8ld) and (l8lc), (l8le) may be used to find R*

From (l80c) and (l80a) we have

ngji) = I-R + I . n ^(1) B-^R"^

hence

B = R"^ ( n ^^^ + R - 21)"^ n ^^^ (l8lf)

Finally^ from (l80a) we have

ß = n^(i) R-iß-^ (l8lg)

It follows from (l8la-g) that estimates of the parameters of (I7¿i.)-(l76) may

be derived from estimates of the parameters of (l78a-b) by the solution of

linear equations.
. 7^ -

In the preceding examples, current values of expectational variables are

assumed to have no effect on the rates of change of current quantities

demanded. We now ass\mie instead that the rate of change of the ctJirrent quantity demanded depends not only on the difference between the long-run equilibrium and current q-uantities demanded but also on the difference between the

current and expected nonnal prices of the commodity in question. Thus we use

relations of the form of (lOO) rather than of the form of (23)•

First, consider the model consisting of equations (99)^ (32), and (lOO)

X* = b PÎ + ut (99)

Pt - Pt-1 " P fPt - Pt-1^ (32)

^t - H-l = S 0 [pt - Pt] + S 1 [xï - x^.i] (100)

The reduced version of the system (99), (32), (lOO) may be obtained by the

same method that was used to obtain (104); it is

x^ = [b ß 6 1 + (1- ß ) ÔQ] Pt - (1- ß ) 5 o Pt-1 +

[(1-ß) + (l-ôi)] xt^i -

(1-ß ) (1-5 i) x^^2 "^ ^1 [u^ - (1- ß) u^^^l. (182)

Here the residual term, on [u^ - (l- ß) ^j^-iL l^a-s the same properties as the

residual term of equation t^6k) (see page ö8). ß , ô Q^ and 6-^ enter (l82)

asymmetrically, however.

Equation (l82) suggests a regression of the form

H =" '^ 11 Pt + "^12 Pt-1 * • "" 21 ^t-1 "••

"22^t.2^^t (^^3)

If the appropriate serial correlation exists, at least approximately, among

the residuals u-^, eqtxation (183) may be estimated by least squares.

Estimates of b, ß , b Q, and ô 2. loay be obtained from the estimates of

fT 2_xy '^12^ '^ 21> ^^^ '^22' ^ Unfortxmately, this requires the solution of a

quadratic in the estimates n g-^ and ^ 22 ^-^ ^ 21 ^^^ ^22* ^^ indicated on

page 69, certain difficulties arise from this, particularly since ß and 6 ^

enter the coefficients TT 21 and u 22 symmetrically. We therefore cannot tell

whether a particular root is an estimate of ß or of S-j^.

As in the preceding example, this case may be generalized. Substantially

the same results emerge concerning the possibility of estimating the coeffi-'

cients of the structxiral equations and the effects of separability.
- 75 -

EFFECTS OF SERIAL CORREIATION

As noted previously, the statistical estimation of the structural parameters of equations containing distributed lags by least squares frequently

requires rather imusual ass"umptions concerning the nature of the residual

terms in the original demand equations. When the distributed lags are due

solely to technological or institutional rigidities, these complications do

not arise in estimating parameters in the reduced equations but they do arise

when ve use the iterative procedure.

In our discussion of estimation techniques we have come across several

types of problems that involve possible serial correlation. Outline 1 summarizes the possibilities in a number of cases: Column (l) öhows the supposed

basic cause of the distributed lag under consideration. Column (2) indicates

the method of estimation to be employed; the iterative method is used to estimate the parameters of the demand equation and the distribution of lag

directly from an equation involving a distributed lag, and the non-iterative

method is used to estimate the parameters of the original demand equation and

the distribution of lag indirectly by estimating the parameters of a reduced

demand equation or set of such equations which involve only discrete lags.

Column (3) shows the type of reduction used if appropriate. Single and multiple equation methods are indicated, and the multiple equation method for a

separable system is designated by the term "System separated." In the last

case we suppose that the equations which may be separated from the main body

of the system (such as the consumption function) are solved for the expectational variables they involve; these solutions are then substituted in the

main body of the system of equations before reduction. Column (h) shows the

actual residual term in the equation or equations used for estimation in terms

of the residual term(s) of the original demand equation(s). If the distributed lags are due to uncertainty and the non-iterative method is used, the

methods of reduction are supposed to apply to a model such as

^It = ^11 Pit + ^12 P2t + ^It

^2t = ^21 Pit + ^22 P2t + ^2t

or

^ (l8ifa)

^it = ^11 Pit +^1 y* + ^It

Ct - 0 + ^n+1 yt + %+l t

(l8ifb)

In the case of single equation reduction, ß and a refer to different coefficients of expectations, and in the last two cases the a*s are complicated

fimctions of the b's or c*s in (l84a-b) and the coefficients of expectations.

Colimm (5) shows the type of serial correlation present in the residuals of

the estimation eqiaation if the residvials of the original demand equations, u^
Outline 1.—Alternative methods of estimation: Effects on serial correlation in the residxaals of the estimating

equation

Case

Cause of

: distributed

1 lag

: Method

: of

: estimation

; Tyipe of

reduction ;

Residual term in

estimating

eqxiation

: Nature of serial

correlation

introduced

if ut is

independently

distributed

(1) (2) (3) i (k) (5)

1 . Technological

or

: institutional

, rigidities

Iterative None L 5(1-5) ux 1/

Moving summation

(positive serial

correlation)

2 Do. Noniterative Single eqxaation 5ut 2/ None

3 . uncertainty Iterative None "t 3/ Do.

k do. Noniterative Single equation 4/

+

[(1-a) + (l-ß)] u^..i

(l-a)(l-ß) ut-2 5/

Moving average

5 : do- do. Multiple equation k/ ^It - (ai(^)uit_i + a2(^)u2t .1)6/ Moving average

^t - (^l^^^^lt-l + a2^^^^t.-l) Intercorrelation of

residuals in different equations

as well as serial

correlation

6 ! do. do. System separated k/

(multiple equation)

^It

^S^^^^t-l 1/

Moving average

1/ See equation (130), page 53- 2/ See equation (137)^ page 58. 3/ See equation (132), page 5^ . 4/ Two

iqoectational variables assumed to be involved in original equation or equations. 5/ See eqtiation (l^O), page

ON

expectational ,^*-.—^^^ ^^^w«^«. »,« ^^ ***,v.^,wv. *« v**.e>j.4L*v*j. V.V4V*W.WJ.WJ.í V

60. 6/ See equation (l47), page 63. 7/ See equation (156)^ page 65.
- 77 -

or ujt ^^^ ^2t> ^^^ ^^ fact independently distributed. 36/ Cases which resvilt

from a combination of technological rigidity and uncertainty are not dis^

cussed, inasmuch as the residual tenns possess properties identical with those

of a noncombination model.

A brief summary of the effects of nonindependence in the residual terms

of an estimating equation when least squares estimating techniques are used is

given here. If no lagged values of the dependent variable enter as independent variables, the estimated coefficients are statistically unbiased and consistent, but they are statistically inefficient and the ordinary t- and Ftests do not apply. The estimates of the residual variance are biased. When

lagged values of the dependent variable enter as independent variables, the

coefficients are biased for small samples. 37/ Mann and Wold (23^ pp. 175-

192) show, imder fairly general assumptions about the nature of the residual

serial correlation, that the least squares estimates of the coefficients are

asymptotically unbiased and consistent. The term asymptotic indicates that

these properties are realized only for large samples.

Alternative Cases

With the above comments in mind, we may analyze the effects of the alternative cases presented in outline 1.

Case 1.—Here the distributed lag or lags are due to technological or institutional rigidities and the iterative method of estimation is used. Unless

the residuals of the original demand equation follow the complicated autoregressive scheme indicated in equation (130) (see page 53); the residuals

t

wt = r 6(1-0)^-^ ux (185)

x=o

are not independently distributed. 38/ Provided we take our origin in the

sufficiently distant past, it may be shown that the correlation of w^ with

n-n^ P n^ is

P n = (1-Ô )^ (186)

36/ The terms "moving summation" and "moving average" refer to a specified

type of nonindependence in the residual terms. Their meaning should be clear

in this context.

37/ See Hurwicz (19). Hurwicz shows, for a number of simple cases, that the

bias of the coefficients of the lagged dependent variables tends toward zero.

Some of his results are also applicable to maxim\mi likelihood estimates of the

coefficients in systems of simultaneous equations which contain lagged endogenous variables as well as predetermined variables.

38/ We partly proved this in footnote 26. The results which follow are

based on the general formula for the correlogram of a stationary stochastic

process of moving summation.
- 78 -

if the u^ are independently distributed. The variance of w^ can be shown to be

^ ^ l-(l-ô)2 ^^ (187)

2

where cr^^ is the variance of the residual term u^ of the original demand

equation. Consequently the variance-covariance matrix, ß, of the residuals

in the estimating equation is

(1-8) (1-0)2 _;

.2 a 2 / (1-Ô) 1 (1- Ô) .

1.(1-6)^ (1-5)2 (1-0) 1

Equation (l88) should be compared with the usual assumption that ß =

G ^ I, where I is the identity matrix. Because of this nonindependence, the

estimates of the coefficients in the estimating equation are not statistically

efficient and the estimate of the residual variance is biased. 39/ Recalling

that the iterative procedure involves maximizing the calculated multiple correlation between the observed quantity demanded and weighted moving averages

of current and past prices with respect to the weights in those averages, we

see that, since the estimate of the residual variance is biased, so may be our

estimates of all the coefficients, Ô included. In sum, independence of the

u^ leads to biased estimates in the first case of outline 1, even though'no

lagged values of the dependent variable are included as independent variables

in the estimating equation.

A relatively simple solution to this problem exists. Aitken (l) has

shown that if the variance-covariance matrix of the residuals in the estimating equations is known, it is possible to specify a transformation of the

variables which removes all nonindependence from the resulting residual terms.

Furthermore, it is not actually necessary to specify the transformation, but

only to compute the moments of the normal equations in a way which depends on

the inverse of the original variance-covariance matrix, Q . Since the matrix

Q. depends only on the parameter 6 (in the case londer consideration), it is

feasible to use Aitken's method at every iteration of the procedure: Just as

the weighted moving averages of prices is different for each iteration, so is

the exact way in which the moments are computed. All this, of course, rests

on the assumption that the residuals u^ are independently distributed; if this

assumption cannot be made, little can be done.

39/ The fact that the ordinary t- and F-tests do not apply need not concern

us in this case, since they never apply when the iterative procedure is used

regardless of whether the residuals are independently distributed or not.
- 79 -

Case 2.—Here the distributed lag is again due to rigidities of a technological or institutional nature but, in contrast to case 1, the noniterative

method is used. In this case, the assumption that the residuals of the original demand eqiaation are independently distributed does not lead to any

complications: the residual S u^ also are independently distributed.

If, however, the u^ are not independently distributed, their lack of independence shows up in the residuals of the reduced equation. Since the

lagged quantity consumed is treated as an independent variable, the estimates

of the coefficients in the reduced equation are biased for small samples. In

this instance we have no a priori basis on which to specify the form or content of the residual variance-covariance matrix; consequently Aitken's

generalized least squares cannot be easily applied. Cochrane and Orcutt (?)

suggest an iterative method of autoregressive transformation which might be

applied in this case.

Case 3.—The next three cases presented in outline 1 deal with distributed lags due to uncertainty. When the iterative procedure is used, as in

case 3, no serial correlation is introduced in the residuals of the estimating

eq\aation if there is none present in the residuals. This is in contrast to

the sitxaation when the iterative method is used but the distributed lags are

due to technological or institutional rigidities.

If the residuals of the original demand are not distributed independently, the estimates of the parameters in the demand eqiaation and the coefficient(s) of expectation may be biased, since the estimate of the residual

variance is. Since we have no a priori basis on which to specify the residual

variance-covariance matrix, Aitken's method cannot be employed. If we have

reason to suspect that the u^ are not independently distributed, or if we find

significant serial correlation in the calculated residuals of the final

result, 4o/ the best that can be done, at present, is to use the technique

suggested by Cochrane and Orcutt (8).

Case k.—Here the parameters of the original demand eqxaation are to be

estimated from a reduced equation obtained from the original by the single

eq\iation method. If the residuals of the reduced eqimtion are a "moving

average" pf the residuals of the original demand equation, the residxials

wt = u^ - [(1- a) + (1- ß)] u^^i + (l.a)(l. ß) ut^2 (^^9)

tend to be serially correlated if the u-^^ are not. The correlogram of the

residuals w-j;^ is as follows

ko/ Using, for example, the Durbin-Watson statistic. See Durbin and Watson
8o

n = <

[(l>^a) ^ (1-ß)] [1 + (l>a)(l->ß)]

1 + [(1-a) + (l-ß)]^ + [(l-a)(l-ß)]^

1 + [(1-a) + (1-ß)]^ + [(l-a)(l-ß)]^

k

n = O

n = 1

n = 2

n> 3

(190)

Since O < a, ß < 1^ the first-order serial correlation is negative and the

second-order serial correlation is positive. Because lagged values of the dependent variable are included as independent variables, the least squares

estimates of the parameters in the reduced equation tend to be biased for

small samples, if the residuals of the original equation are independently

distributed. As indicated in our previous discussion of estimation based on

single equation reductions, the more expectational variables included in the

original equation, the greater the number of lagged residual terms, u^, included in the residual term of the reduced form, w^.

If all the coefficients of expectations (a and ß in this case) were

known a priori, Aitken*s method of generalized least squares could be applied

in case we had reason to believe the residuals of the original demand equation

were independently distributed. Since, however, they are not known, other

methods must be used. One possible procedure would be to apply the transformation procedure implied by Aitken's procedure, but with unspecified coefficients of expectations. We could then minimize the sum of squared residuals

with respect to these parameters and with respect to the parameters in the

original equation and the coefficients of expectations. kl/ Although this

method leads to statistically efficient estimates, it is not certain that they

are xinbiased. Furthermore, the "normal" equations resulting from such minimization are not linear in the parameters and, hence, are difficiilt to solve.

Alternatively we could use the method suggested by Cochrane and Orcutt (8).

In the case presented in the table, the residuals of the reduced equation

are a linear fiinction of the residuals of the original equation and two of

their lagged values; thus we have a second-order difference equation in these

original residuals. Solution of this difference eqixation yields an autoregressive scheme. The first few autoregressive coefficients in the scheme

might then, as Cochrane and Orcutt suggest, be estimated from the calculated

residuals. The results coiild then be used to transform the variables entering

the reduced equation. Such a procediere would, however, be difficxilt in practice and likely to yield only crude approximations to the correct transformations .

kl/ This method follows from one suggested by Klein (20, pp. I86-I89).
. 81 -

Case 5*—Here the m*ultiple equation method of reduction is used. Column

(h) shows that the residuals of one of the reduced equations are linear functions of the residuals of one of the original demand eqiaations and lagged

values of the residuals of tvo of the original equations. If all the residuals of the original equations are independently distributed^ the fact that

the residual term of the reduced equation contains more than one lagged

residual of the original equations causes no more difficulty than the case in

which only one expectational variable is included. In the latter case single

and multiple reduced equations are identical: the reduced residual is a linear

function of the resid\ial of the original equation and its lagged value. Because^ in the case presented in outline 1, the residual U2t-i is independently

distributed, it may be taken as a random addition to the residual, w^^^, of the

first reduced equation. As noted in the outline, however, the effect of the

two random terms in w-^^ and W2^ is to make them nonindependent. This, of itself, is not sufficient to cause bias in the estimates of the coefficients.

The serial correlation of W2^-^ and W2t does, however, cause bias in the estimates of the parameters of the reduced equation.

The correlogram of Wj^-j^ is

> (i=l, 2) (191)

pj^^ = 0 , n > 1

Since, as reference to equation (1^7) indicates, a^v^) is a complicated function of the parameters in both original demand equations and both coefficients

of expectations, it is impossible to apply Aitken's method. The best procedure probably is to use either of the two methods suggested in the previous

case.

CO'Se 6.—This deals with a separable system which is separated prior to

reduction. When a system is separated, the dependent variables of some of the

equations enter as independent variables in the equations used to estimate the

parameters of part of the original system of demand equations. The residual

terms of the eliminated equations also enter the residual terms of the reduced

equations'used for estimation; consequently, severe bias of the estimates of

the coefficients may result. In view of this additional difficulty, it is

usually wise not to separate a system of separable demand equations, but

rather to estimate them as a group or any one of them from a single reduced

equation. k2/

h2/ This statement differs from a suggestion made in connection with a test

of Friedman's permanent income hypothesis. See page 112.
- 82 -

Alternative Assumptions

As suggested in our discussion of estimation procedures, all the difficulties so far presented in this part may, in theory, be obviated by assuming

that the residuals of the original demand equations follow more-or-less complicated autoregressive schemes. In view of the nature of most economic time

series, to assume these autoregressive schemes is neither better nor worse

than to assume the residuals in the original equations are independently distributed. On the other hand, false specification of any kind may lead to

serious errors.

One procedure is as follows: Test the residuals of the estimating equations for evidence of serial correlation; if significant serial correlation is

fo\md, then worry about it.

INTERDEPENDENCY OP VARIABLES WITHIN A SYSTEM

Although the problems of serial correlation are serious, they are more

easily managed by assimiption than the group of problems to which we now turn.

In our exposition of the miatiple equation method of reduction, we made use of

the fact that an individual demand equation generally is part of a system of

equations. We restricted the other equations in this system, however, to be

demand equations. In doing so we neglected a problem of crucial importance:

both current prices and current quantities frequently are determined jointly

by a system of demand and supply equations. If no distributed lags are involved in either set, the problem is that usually discussed in the theory of

estimation of simultaneous equations. h¿¡ The introduction of distributed

lags raises problems which are hitherto unsolved. As we show, these problems

are closely connected with the problem of serial correlation.

Conditions Which Must Be Satisfied If the

Method of Least Squares Is Used

In a recent article, Phillips (28) summarized the necessary conditions

for the use of least squares on systems of simultaneous equations that involve

distributed lags. Although Phillips deals only with a relatively simple case,

his main results are useful, kk/

Consider the following demand equation involving a distributed lag:

xt = ^0 Pt + "^1 Pt-1 + ^2 Pt-2 + •*• + ^r Pt-r -^ ^t (192)

¿4-3/ See Klein (20) or Koopmans and Hood (21).

íí5/ The model used here for expository purposes is slightly different from

that given by Phillips.
- 83 -

where the constant term is neglected for simplicity. Note that this equation

is almost identical to equation (k) (see page 8). We suppose that we also

have a supply equation:

H = ^O Pt + ^1 Pt-1 "»• ^2 H-2 "^ • • • **• % Pt-s ^ ^t (193)

The quantity consumed and produced, x^, and the current price, p^, are assxmied

to be jointly determined by equations (192) and (193)• Under what conditions

may the coefficients of (l92) be estimated without statistical bias by least

squares?

Phillips gives four conditions, all of which must be satisfied if the

least squares estimates are to be unbiased. If the number of past prices

which we must include in (192), r, is known, Phillips* first condition is not

applicable. In practice, however, r, is not known. Instead we might choose to

introduce R past prices, so that we actually try to estimate

xt = ^0 Pt + ^1 Pt-1 + .. • + bp pt«R -f u^ (19^)

Phillips' first condition is that

R > r (195)

For if R < r, the lagged prices Pt-(R4.l)> Pt-(R+2)^ *•• Pt-r^ ^^^ omitted from

(19^) and the residual term is

^' = Vl Pt-(R+1) + ^R+2 Pt-(R+2) + ••• + l^r Pt-r "^ ^t (^^6)

Equation (193) is an s-order difference equation in price as a function

of time; it may be solved for p^ in terms of past values of x^. Equation

(192) and its lagged counterparts may be used to substitute for x;^, x^^^^ • • •

in the result. Such substitution yields another difference eq\aation in price

as a function of time. In addition to price, this difference equation contains current and lagged values of u^ and v^. The new difference equation may

be regarded as an autoregressive process if u^ and v^ are independently distributed; consequently p^ is serially correlated and the R+1 current and past

values of price included in (19^) are correlated with the residual term u^.

As is well known, this correlation leads to statistical bias in the leastsquares estimates of bQ, b-^, ..., bj^.

As indicated (193) is an s-order difference equation; \mder the appropriate initial conditions it has a solution of the form

Pt = AQ (X^ - v^) ^ Al (x^.3^ - V^^-L) + ... (197)

Phillips' second condition is that

AQ = 0 (198)
« dk -

that is, that the system (192)-(193) is recursive, k^/ Otherwise, p^ depends

on x-t and, from (192), x-^ depends on n^; hence, by X196) pt is correlated with

u;.

Suppose that Phillips* first and second conditions are fulfilled and suppose further that

Ai = 0 for i = 0, 1, •.., j

so that price is not affected by x^, x^.3^, ..., x^^j. Phillips* third

condition is that the residuals u^ must not be autocorrelated over intervals

containing more than j periods; that is, the correlogram of u+ should be such

that

Eu+Uf ^

p-^^ = Pn = 0 ^^^ ^ >J (199)

Eut

To prove this we solve (192) and (197) for p^. As Phillips (26, p. 110)

points out, the general solution may be written

Pt = (Li ut.i + L2 ut.2 +•••)+ (wt + Ml Wt^i + M2 wt.2 + •••) (200)

where

^t = -AQ V^ . A^ v^^3^ - ... (201)

and where the L*s and M*s are functions of the b's of (192) and the A*s of

(197). According to Phillips (28, p. 110), if A^ =0 for all i from 1 to j,

where j is any integer, then LJL = 0 for all i from 1 to j; and if A^ ^ 0 for

i = j+1 then Bi ?^ 0 for all i > j+1. Multiplying (200) by ut and taking

expected values we have

EPt ^t = (LI EutUt«! + L2 EutUt.2 + .••) +

(EutWt + Mx EutWt«! -f ...) (202)

It follows from (202) that EptUt ^ 0 imless p^^^ = 0 for all n such that

Ln ?^ 0, that is, for all n > j.

Phillips' fourth condition is that ut must be imcorrelated with the Wt>

^t-l^ ••• • This condition follows directly from equation (202). By (201) we

see that if ut is uncorrelated with Vt> Vt.i> •.., Phillips' fourth condition

is satisfied.

Phillips' four conditions must be satisfied if we are to use least

squares to estimate the coefficients of (l92), but his conditions do not suggest what method or methods should be employed if they are not satisfied.

fi¿/ See Wold and Jureen (36, p. Ik).
- 85 .

This difficulty results because Phillips does not specify a model which generates a distributed lag or lags, but only assumes the existence of such lags.

When we do specify a model (especially if we specify one of the types discussed above), the problem of what to do if least squares is not appropriate

is readily suggested.

An Approach Which Can Be Used If the Method of Least

Squares Is Not Directly Applicable

We have shown that when distributed lags are generated by the models discussed in this paper, equations containing them may be reduced to equations

containing only discrete lags, albeit at the expense of introducing serial

correlation in the residuals of the reduced equations if there is none to

begin with in the original equations. An equation or group of equations may

be reduced whether the equations deal with demand or supply; consequently we

may write any system of equations containing distributed lags as a system of

equations containing only discrete lags. Provided we can neglect the problem

of serial correlation in the residuals of the reduced equations, standard

techniques are available for dealing with the problem of simultaneity.

Before concluding this section, we briefly indicate the operation of this

method in a particular case. Suppose we have a demand function

a consumption function

and a supply function

xt = b pi;^ + c y| (203)

Ct = 0 + c» y^ (204)

x^ = d p^ + e z^ (205)

where z^ is an exogenous variable determining supply and p^ is the producers*

expected normal price. Note that we assijme that (l) income is exogenous,

(2) current price and current income do not affect demand, (3) current price

does not affect supply, and (h) that producers' and consiomers' expectations

are different. Let ß be the consumers' coefficient of expectations for

price, a be the consumers' coefficient of expectations for income, and ß * be

the producers' coefficient of expectations. We neglect the problem of serial

correlation. Equation (66) (see page 33) shows that the reduced equations of

(203)-(204) are

xt = ^ ß Pt + c ^ yt + (1- ß) ^t-1 +

[(l«a) ^^ (l.ß)] c^.-L (206)

C^ = C a y^ + (l-a) C^^3^ (20?)
- 86 .

Equation (97) (see page ko) shows that the reduced eqiaation of (205) is

H = d ß * Pf»- ^ H + (1- ß *) H-1 - ^(1- ß^) Zt-1 (208)

Equations (206) and (208) Jointly determine p^ and x^. y^, x+ ., C+ n/ z+,

and z^.i are predetermined; consequently, equation (20?) may be estimated by

least squares. Equations (206) and (208) each are overidentified (whether or

not we count C^ as a variable in the system) and may be estimated by the

method of limited information,

DEMAMD FOR DURABLE CONSUMPTION GOODS AND THE DISTINCTION

BETWEEN CONSUMPTION AND SAVING 46/

The distinguishing characteristic of a durable commodity is that utility

is derived from its services over time rather than from consumption of the

commodity itself at a point in time. As a definition of a durable consumption

good, however, this distinction is rather loose. We do not observe a consumer's utility derived from the consumption of goods and services but only

his expenditures on the number of physical imits of each which he purchases.

Expenditure on goods and services frequently is called consumption, and is

called the "cost of living" or "real income" by Fisher (l4, pp. 6-8).

The utility which consumers derive from their expenditures on goods and

services may not be accurately measured by those expenditures. Fisher (ik.

pp. 8-9) put the point well: —

"The only ... discrepancy worth carefully noting is that which occurs

when ... money spent is not simply for the temporary use of some object but

for the whole object, which means merely for all its possible future uses. If

a house is not rented but bought, we do not co\mt the purchase price as all

spent for this year's shelter. We expect from it many more years of use.

Hence out of the entire purchase price, we try to compute a fair portion of

the purchase price to be charged up to this year's use. In like manner, the

statisticians of cost of living [that is, consumption] should distribute by

periods the cost of using a person's house furnishings, clothing, musical instruments, automobiles and other durable goods, and not charge the entire cost

against the income of the year of purchase. To any given year should be

charged only that year's upkeep and replacement, which measures, at least

roughly, the services rendered h^ ttie goods in question during that particular

year [underlining minejl The true real annual income from [that is, consumption of] such goods is the equivalent approximately of the cost of the

services given off by those goods each year.

"Strictly speaking, then, in making up our income (consumption) statistics, we should always calculate the value of services, and never the value of

the objects rendering those services. It is true ,that, in the case of shortlived objects like food, we do not ordinarily need, in practice, to go to the

i!;6/ This topic is partially covered in Nerlove (27), with special reference

to the demand for automobiles.
. 87 -

trouble of distinguishing their total cost from the cost of their use. A loaf

of bread is worth ten cents [this was written in 1930] because its use is

worth ten cents* We cannot rent food; we can only buy it outright. Yet there

is some discrepancy ... in the case of foods that keep, such as flour, preserved foods and canned goods. These we may buy in one year but not use until

a later year, and in such cases the money given for the food might almost be

said to be invested rather than spent, like the money given for a house. A

man who buys a basket of fruit and eats it within an hour is certainly spending his money for the enjoyment of eating fruit. But, if he buys a barrel of

applies in the fall to be eaten during the winter, is he spending his money or

is he investing it for a deferred enjoyment? Theoretically the barrel of

apples is an investment comparable to a house or any other durable good.

Practically it is classed as an expenditure, although it is a border-line

case.

"Spending and investing differ only in degree, depending on the length of

time elapsing between the expenditure and the enjoyment. To spend is to pay

money for enjoyments which come very soon. To invest is to pay money for enjoyments which are deferred to a later time. We spend money for our daily

bread and butter or for a seat at the theater, but we invest money in the purchase of bonds, farms, dwellings, or automobiles, or even suits of clothes."

It is important to note that Fisher uses investment in the sense that we

usually use saving, namely as consiomers* additions to their assets. Thus the

quotation from Fisher not only sheds light on the nature of durable goods purchases but also on the distinction between consumption and saving. Purchases

of durable goods are partially in the nature of saving just as are bond purchases, life insurance premiums, retirement fund contributions, social security payments, and additions to one's bank accoiint. Expenditures on durable

goods in excess of the use value of services rendered by them should be

treated as savings and not consimption. hij

Purchases of individual durable goods, automobiles, clothing, and the

like, are therefore not entirely susceptible to the usual type of demand

analysis. By treating the problem of the demand for durable consxmption goods

in terms of the flow of services from those goods, we can indeed apply the

usual type of analysis. This approach, however, leaves a good deal to be desired, for the industry producing a durable good is directly interested not in

the demand for the services of those goods but in the number of new units purchased or the total current expenditure for new units. Thus the cotton farmer

or the wool grower is interested in the demand for the services of cotton or

wool textiles only insofar as this demand affects new purchases of cotton or

wool textiles.

47/ It follows that the Commerce Department's definition of aggregate consimption is not entirely appropriate for use in demand analyses of the type

suggested in this paper.
- 88 -

At the beginning of this paper we emphasized the role which the durability of certain goods plays in causing changes in the quantities of various

goods and services consumed to lag behind changes in prices or incomes; we

argued that the durability of certain goods helped to implement the psychological^ technological^ and institutional factors causing distributed lags.

In subsequent paragraphs we develop this idea more fully and show how the

methods discussed in preceding sections of this paper may be used to study the

new purchases of durable commodities. We do this by making use of an example

concerning automobiles, hd/

An Example Relating to Automobiles

Given a homogeneous group of automobiles with given age and quality

characteristics, we may reasonably assume that the flow of services is proportional to the nimiber of automobiles in the group. This is just another way of

saying that identical automobiles are perfect substitutes, so that the marginal rate of substitution between any two automobiles equals one. It is

clear that we cannot consider the total number of automobiles in the hands of

consumers as a homogeneous group: a 1937 car in the moderately-priced class

can hardly be considered as yielding the same net flow of services as a 1956

car in a high-priced class. Cars of different makes or different ages are not

perfect one-for-one substitutes; consequently the flow of services from the

cars now in the hands of consumers cannot be considered proportional to their

numbers. A possible solution to the problem of investigating the demand for

automobiles is to consider the market for cars as a set of inter-related markets for close but not perfect substitutes. ^9/ On the other hand, evidence

presented by Chow (7), suggests that cars of different ages and/or makes may

be perfect substitutes albeit with marginal rates of substitution different

from one.

Estimating the stock of automobiles.—Let the stock of automobiles at any

given time be a number to which the flow of services is proportional. We can

derive the stock of automobiles from the numbers of different makes and ages

in the hands of consumers only if such automobiles are perfect substitutes.

If the market for new cars were perfect, in an economic sense, we could develop an index of new car purchases based on the value of new cars sold each

year, but to do this we must assume that an automobile selling for $5^000,

say, yields twice the flow of services as one selling for $2,500. Under this

approach, we use the market prices to determine the marginal rates of substitution (which are constant if all new automobiles are perfect substitutes)

48/ The demand for automobiles has been ably treated by Roos and von

Szeliski (29), Farrell (12), and Chow (7)• îhe latter contains a useful summary of the studies of Roos and von Szeliski and Farrell. The discussion of

long-run automobile demand presented here is not meant to be a study of the

demand for automobiles but is designed only for illustrative purposes.

49/ This is the approach taken by Farrell (12).
. 89 -

among automobiles of different makes and^ on this basis, form an aggregate in

which make or quality is held constant. Although it is by no means clear that

the market for new cars is perfect, we neglect the problems which may arise

because of imperfections in the new car market.

If cars of different ages are perfect substitutes and if the used-car

market were perfect, we could presumably develop an index of the stock of

automobiles, adjusted for both age and make, based on an index of their total

value. Observation suggests, however, that the market for used automobiles is

far from perfect; so that, while we might stretch the facts a bit to assume

that the new car market is perfect, we are less justified in assuming the used

car market to be perfect. The difference in the degree of perfection of "new"

and "used" markets for other durable goods is even more marked, with clothing

as perhaps the most extreme example. Nevertheless, the assumption of constant

marginal rates of substitution between automobiles enables us to derive, with

one additional assumption, a stock of automobiles, adjusted for age, from the

purchases of new cars.

The magnitudes of the marginal rates of substitution between cars of different ages are roughly indicated by the way in which automobiles depreciate.

It is common knowledge that cars depreciate rapidly the first few years and

more slowly thereafter; hence, constant percentage depreciation seems to indicate the pattern of substitution between automobiles of different ages. Let d

be the percentage rate of depreciation, then, by our assumption, 1-d is

roughly the marginal rate of substitution between two cars of a standard make

differing in age by one year. Assume that new car purchases are adjusted for

make and model. Let s^ be the stock of automobiles during period t, that is,

the n\miber of automobiles to which the flow of services is proportional; let

x^ be new car purchases during t; let xt-i be new car purchases during t-1;

and so on. Under our assiamptions

s^.l = H + (1-cL) H-1 •*• (l-<i)^ H-2 + ••• (^9)

Thus, the stock of automobiles at any time is a special kind of function

of new car p\irchases taken with a distributed lag. As discussed previously,

this form of distributed lag allows the reduction of (209) to

s^ = xt -h (1-d) s^.i (210)

Under our assimiptions, the demand for automobiles may be considered as the demand for a stock of automobiles adjusted for both age and make, that is, s^.

Factors that affect the demand for the services of automobiles.—This demand for the services of automobiles depends on a variety of factors. These

include: (l) the price of automobiles relative to other commodities, (2) real

disposable income, (3) population, (4) the extent and quality of the highway

network, and (5) the degree of urbanization and/or suburbanization. The longTun elasticities of demand with respect to these variables may differ from the
- 90 -

corresponding short-rim elasticities, and the quantity demanded may depend on

expected normal price and income as well as on the ciorrent values of these

variables. We may therefore formulate a variety of models.

Let p^ be the current price of automobiles relative to other commodities,

y^ be current disposable income, and z+ be any other current factors which influence the demand for automobiles, 50/ The simplest model is to assume no

difference between long- and short-nm elasticities of demand due either to

technological or institutional rigidities or to uncertainty. In this case the

demand for the services of automobiles may be written in linear form as

^t = ^1 Pt + ^2 yt ^ ^3 H (211)

For convenience we neglect the constant and residual terms.

Substituting (211) and (211) lagged one period in (210) we have

^t = ^1 Pt "*" ^2 ^t "»• ^3 H

= x^ + (1-d) [ai pt«i + a.2 yt-i + ^3 z^-i] (212)

Hence, x^, new car purchases in period t, may be related to p^, y^, z^ and

Pt-1^ yt-1^ ^^* ^t-1 ^^ follows

^t = ^1 Pt + ^2 yt + ^3 H -

a^ (1-d) p^.i - ag (1-d) y^.i - ag (l-d) z^.^ (213)

under suitable conditions, the coefficients in (213) laay be estimated by means

of an ordinary least squares regression perhaps with the restraint that

a-t ap a-^

^ ai (1-d) " ag (1-d) = a3 (l-d) ^^^^^

To develop a model which includes rigidities of a technological or institutional nature, we introduce the notion of long-run equilibrium stock of

automobiles, s*, and suppose that consumers try to change their current stock

in proportion to the difference between their long-run equilibrixmi stock and

the stock they currently hold, that is, we suppose

H - ^t-l = S [sí - s^.i], 0 < 6 < 1 (215)

Replacing s^ by s!^ in (211) we have

H = 8-1 Pt -^ ^2 yt -^ ^3 H (216)

50/ If both stock and income are taken on a per capita basis, z^ need not

include population. Otherwise z^ includes population as well as other

factors.
-^ -» --!-•- •

91

If we do not know the appropriate rate of depreciation, d, we cannot

reduce equations (215) and (2l6) in such a way that we obtain equations involving only observable variables; instead we proceed as follows: Lag (215)

one period, multiply through by (1-d) and subtract the result from (215)

thus

St = (1-d) s^^i =.6 [s^ - d s^.i] +

5) [st.i - d st.gl (217)

From (217) and (210) we have.

* ^ «*

x^ = Ô [s^ . d s|.i] + (1-0) x^^i

4

Substituting from (2l6) for s* and s*.n in (2l8) we have

(218)

Xt = ai 6 pt - ai Ô (l-d) p^.i + ag ô y^ - ag ô (l-d) y^^^ +

^3 ô zt = ag Ô (l-d) zt.i + (1- Ô) x^ 1 (219)

which contains only observable variables. Under appropriate conditions, the

coefficients in (219) may be estimated by ordinary least squares, perhaps with

the restriction that

»2, ^ ^2^ ^'\^

a-L ô (l-d) ag 5 (l-d) a3 ô (l-d)

(220)

We now drop the assumption that rigidities are due to technological or

institutional causes, and assume, instead, that they are present due to \mcertainty. Let p-^ and y% be expected normal price and expected normal inca

respectively. For simplicity, let us assume that current price and current

income have no effect on the demand for automobiles. Then we may write the

demand equation as

* #

St = ^1 Pt + ^2 yt + ^3 H (221)

Substituting (221) in (210) we have

^.. i^ A\ J^ .^ .Jf . /, -v *

H = Ö.1 p^ - ai (l-d; p^^i + ag yt - ag (l-d) y^.i +

^3 H - ^3 ^^-^^ ^t-l (222)

«3 == -^2 ^-a^^(l-df "tSn^"^ ^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^'^^ ^^ ^ ^^" ^^ " "^^ ^^"^^^ ^3 " ^2>

* . ^ «.* . _. * *

^t = Si Pt + S2 Pt-1 + g3 yt + «4 yt-l (223)

Our expectational equations are
and

- 92 -

PÎ = ß p^ + (1- ß ) pï^i (224)

y^ = a y^ + (l-a) y^.^ (225)

By treating p^.^ and y^.j. ^^ separate expectational variables and writing

(224) and (225), lagged one period, as their expectational equations, we

could, in principle, reduce (223) "by the single equation method. As indicated

in that discussion, the resulting reduced equation, which contains only discrete lags, includes 52 variables in addition to x^, since each of the 4^ = l6

added non-expectational variables includes lagged values of z^ and z^^-j_ as

well as x^. The single equation method, directly applied, is clearly immanageable.

^ Since we have specified no additional demand equations in which p*, Pt-.i>

y^, and yt-i enter, we cannot directly apply the multiple equation approach*

The situation, however, may be somewhat alleviated by specifying a consumption

function, say

Ct = g5 yt (226)

Equations (223), (226), and (226) lagged one period form a separable system of

demand eqiaations; these may be separated prior to reduction. Although, as we

have seen, such a procedure is not to be recommended generally, we have no

choice in this case. Separation of (223), (226), and (226) lagged one period

leads to the following equation:

Ht = Si Pt + 82 Pt-1 + -^ Ct + —— Ct-i (227) g5 g5

The equation

Kt = Ht - -g2- Ct - -g^ Ct_i = gi PÏ + g2 PÏ-i (228)

may be reduced by the single eqiiation method of reduction, taking (224) and

(224) lagged one period as expectational equations. By (56) (see page 29),

the result is

Kt = gl ß Pt + ^2 ß Pt-l - gi (1-ß ) ß Pt-l -

g2 (1- ß ) ß Pt.2 + 2 (1- ß ) K^.^ - (1- ß f K^^2 (^29)

where K+ is defined in (228) and g^, ^^^ gp si^re defined in (223). Substitution

for K^ fo-nd for H^ in K^) shows that (229j involves 1? variables in addition

to Xf While this is a considerable improvement over the 52 obtained by applying the single equation method directly, it is still a large ninnber of

variables•
- 93 -

Conclusions

If we think that rigidities of an expectational nature are important to

the \mderstanding of the demand for consumer durables, we would do well to

specify a system of demand eqioations for durable commodities before proceeding

with any estimation. When distributed lags are introduced because of technological or institutional rigidities, it is not necessary to specify demand

equations for additional durable commodities.

FRIEDMAN»S PERMANENT INCOÍE HYPOÎHESIS AND ITS

IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMAND ANALYSIS ¿l/

In our discussion of Friedman's hypothesis, we take up first the theoretical formulation which led Friedman to believe that, if consimiption and income

are defined correctly, consumption shoiad tend to be a constant proportion of

income independent of the absolute level of income. We next turn to Friedman's statistical specification, which is actually the key to the whole permanent income hypothesis* Following this discussion we examine some of the

implications of Friedman's hypothesis, especially in regard to estimating the

income elasticities of demand for individual categories of consxamption and the

appropriate procedure to be followed when combining cross-section and timeseries data. In conclusion, we present a simple test of the adequacy of the

permanent income hypothesis as applied to individual categories of consxmption. Although the test is a crude one, it suggests that Friedman's

hypothesis is inadequate in certain respects.

Theoretical Formulation

Friedman (l6. Chap. II) first considers a simple 2-period model: Under

conditions of perfect certainty, a consimiers' tastes at a point in time, say

period 1, may be summarized by a 2-dimensional system of indifference cxirves,

as in figure 6. C^, measured along the vertical axis, is the money value,

measured in period 1 prices, of services consumed in period 1 (n.b., not expenditures on goods in period l); C2, measured along the horizontal aScls, is

the money value at period 2 prices of the services consimed in-period 2. A

point on an indifference curve thus represents a particular combination of

consumption in the two periods. We must suppose that underlying each point

there is a prior maximization process, that is, that the expenditures represented by Ci and Cg are optimally distributed at the prices expected in

periods 1 and 2.

51/ Friedman (16) presents a detailed exposition of the permanent income

hypothesis and many of its implications, complete with empirical applications

and a discussion of several alternative theories. The present discussion does

not aim at completeness; for further details the reader is advised to consult

Friedman's own discussion.
- Si^ -

INDIFFERENCE CURVES AND A BUDGET LINE

U. S» DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG* 4419*97(8) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 6.—Hypothetical indifference curves and a budget line of a consumer

imit for consxamption in two time periods. (From figure 1 in Friedman (l6,

p. 8)0

Let R-j^ and Rg be the consumer's expected receipts in periods 1 and 2 and

let i be the rate of interest at which the consumer may borrow or lend freely.

Then the maximxmi amount the consumer may consimie in period 1, represented by

the distance OA in figure 6, is
- 95 -

and the maximum he may consiime in period 2, represented by OB, is

Wg = Ri (1+i) -f R2 (231)

The line AB thus represents the budget line of the consumer. It is clear from

the diagram that the opportunities of the consumer, which we have represented

by three variables Rj, Rg, and i, actually depend on only two, W^ and i, or W2

and i, that is, the slope of the budget line and its height.

As Friedman points out, this elementary formulation sheds considerable

light on the usual view about the consumption function: "What we have been

calling receipts in ... [period] 1 (R^) or some slight modification thereof,

is usually, and partici;aarly in statistical budget studies, called 'income'

and taken as the variable on which consumption depends. Now in our simple

case it is clear that consxamption in .. • [period] 1 does not depend directly

on R^ at all; a change in R^ affects consumption only through its effect on

W^ and, if accompanied by an appropriate opposite change in R2, may not affect

consumption at all. This is clearly eminently sensible: if a consumer xanit ")

knows that its receipts in any one year are xmusually high and expects lower L >|^

receipts subsequently, it will surely tend to adjust its consumption to its f

'normal' receipts rather than to its current receipts." (16, pp. 9-10.)

Friedman also points out the inadequacy of the usual measure of consumption expenditures: "We have been using the term consumption to designate the

value of the services that it is planned to consume during the period in question, which, under conditions of certainty, would also equal the value of the

services actually consumed. The term is generally used in statistical studies

to designate actual expenditures on goods and services. It therefore differs

from the value of services it is planned to consume on two counts; first, because of additions to or subtractions from the stock of consimier goods,

second, because of divergencies between plans and their realization." (16,

p. 11.) —

It can be seen from the simple 2-period model that we already have the

germ of the type of theory enunciated in this paper concerning distributed

lags due to uncertainty. As Friedman has stated in his theory, however, it

does not bear a direct relation to the theory discussed at the beginning of

this paper. The latter actually provides additional reasons for supposing

that current consumption and current income, as usually measured, do not relate directly to the pure theory of consumer behavior.

In addition to supposing that the indifference curves of figure 6 are

negatively sloped and convex to the origin (for the usixal reasons), Friedir^n

supposes that there is an absence of "time preference proper," that is, that

the indifference curves are symmetrical aro\md OD (the k^o une) so that On

and C2 coiad be interchanged without altering the curves. It is not unreasonable to suppose, further, that the indifference curves have common slopes at
-96-

the point where they intersect the line OD; thus, for a given level of W^ orí

W2 and a given interest rate, a consixmer tends to consime the same proportion ^

of receipts in period 1, whether those receipts are large or small. That is^

in this simple case, the rate at which the individual is willing to substitute

consumption in period 2 for consiimption in period 1 depends only on the ratio

of consumption in the two periods, not on the absolute level of consuorption.

In other words, Friedman supposes the consumption function to be homogeneous

of degree one in W^ or Wg. Friedman argues that this is sensible since C]_ and

C2 are of the "same stuff, differing only in dating." Since, "... it is hard

to see any reason why this difference should have an asymmetrical effect ...,"

we may reasonably question the "initially plausible conjecture that the ratio

of consumption to income decreases with income, if income is appropriately defined as a flow that can be permanently maintained [that is, income defined in

terms of Wj or Wg]-" (16, P- 13.)

For indifference curves that satisfy Friedman's assxxmptions, the consumption function assumes a particularly simple fonn

cl = k(i) • YI ^ k(i) • i • Wt (232)

where the asterisks on the variables C^ and y* indicate consumption and income

variables, respectively, which may differ from consumption and income as

usually meas\rred. k(i) is a constant, supposed to depend only on the rate of

interest, 52/ and the last equation indicates that y* is related to the amount

of wealth "fboth human and non-hxaman) at the disposition of the consumer. In

writing (232), Friedman has generalized from the 2-period case, while still

abstracting from uncertainty. In subsequent discussion, Friedman goes considerably beyond the simple fonraaation in (232), but for our purposes it

should sxiffice.

Statistical Specifications

The real interest in the permanent income hypothesis lies, not in Friedman's formulation of the pure theory of consumption behavior as expounded

above, but in his treatment of the relation between the unobservable variables, Cf and y| (called by Friedman "permanent" consumption and "permanent"

income, respectively) and the variables C^ and y-t> which are the consumption

and income we actually measure. Friedman treats this relation in a chapter

entitled "The Permanent Income Hypothesis" (Chap. Ill), and this chapter is

the key to the permanent income hypothesis. Friedman states the basic problem

well: "The magnitudes termed 'permanent income* and 'permanent consumption'

that play such a critical role in the theoretical analysis cannot be observed

directly for any individual consumer unit. The most that can be observed are

actual receipts and expenditures during some finite period, together, perhaps,

with some verbal statements about expectations for the future. The theoretical constructs are ex ante magnitudes; the empirical data are ex post. Yet in

52/ In actual empirical analyses of time series data Friedman neglects the

effects of changes in the rate of interest.
- 97 -

order to use the theoretical analysis to interpret empirical data, a correspondence must be established between the theoretical constructs and the

observed magnitudes." The usual way of establishing such a correspondence has

been simply to treat ciorrent cons"umption expenditures and current income as if

they were the theoretical constructs. Friedman's approach is different.

Let y-j. represent the measured income for a given period of time, and let

Ct represent his measured consumption expenditures for the same period. Friedman proposes the division of these measured magnitudes into two parts: ^3/ The

first may be called the permanent component, y* or C*; the second may be

called the transitory component, yî or C?.

Thus the permanent income hypothesis now consists of three equations:

CÏ = k(i) yl (232)

yt = yt + yt (233)

Gt = CÍ -h CÎ (23Í+)

However, the system of equations (232)-(23^) is not, perhaps, the most reasonable form of the permanent income hypothesis. On several grounds the logarithmic form seems preferable; consequently we may write

log C^ = log k(i) -f log y* (232»)

log y^ = log y^ ^ log y^ (2330

log C^ = log cj -f log C^ (234»)

In his theoretical development Friedman frequently switches from the linear to

the logarithmic form and back, but in his empirical applications he usually

uses the logarithmic form.

The interpretation of the permanent and transitory components of either

income or consumption is slightly different depending on whether we think of

the hypothesis primarily in the context of budget studies (cross-^section data)

or primarily in the context of time-series analyses of the aggregate consumption fiinction. In his chapter III, "The Permanent Income Hypothesis," Friedman gives the. following interpretation:

¿3/ As Friedman points out, this division into two components is arbitrary.

At one point in his monograph, Friedman generalizes his assxmiption so that the

observed magnitudes are divided into an arbitrary number of components. The

choice of two components was made primarily on the grounds of simplicity. (See

footnote 2^16, p. 22) and (16, p. 186). )
- 98 -

"The permanent component [of income] is to be interpreted as reflecting

the effect of those factors that determine the consimier imit's capital value

or wealth: the non-human wealth it owns; the personal attributes of the

earners in the [consumer imit under consideration] ... such as their training,

ability, personality; the attributes of the economic activity of the earners,

such as occupation followed, the location of the economic activity, and so on.

It is analogous to the 'expected' value of a probability distribution. The

transitory component is to be interpreted as reflecting all 'other' factors,

factors that are likely to be treated by the lonit affected as 'accidental' or

'chance' occurences, though they may, from another point of view, be the predictable effect of specifiable forces, for example, cyclical fluctuations in

economic activity." (l6, pp. 21-22.)

Two types of forces produce the transitory component: The first is that

specific to an individual consimier unit. The second is not specific to an individual unit but affects all or part of the group of consumer units under

consideration. For the group as a whole, the transitoiy factors affecting

specific consumer units tend to cancel out by the law of large numbers, so

that the mean transitory component, if caused by factors of the first type,

generally tends towards zero. On the other hand, transitory factors which

affect all or a large number of the members of the group under consideration

do not tend to cancel one another, fn our earlier discussion of distributed

lags due to uncertainty, our primary emphasis was on transitory factors which

do not tend to cancel out. These are likely to be important in time series

analyses and their importance depends on the nature of the period covered.

Factors specific to individ\xal consumer units are of importance primarily in

the analysis of budget data and they depend on the nat\ire of the group being

studied.

The transitory forces affecting consumption are likely to be specific to

particular consumer xmits. Consequently, Friedman argues that the transitory

component of consumption may be assumed to have zero mean when we deal with

time series data. However, on the basis of o\ir discussion in an earlier section of this paper, it is clear that rigidities in consumer behavior may arise

from causes of an institutional or technological nature. In this case, we may

well regard current consumption expenditures for an entire group of consumer

units as having transitory components whose mean is not zero. It therefore

seems iinreasonable to assume before hand that the transitory component of consumption averages zero when we deal with time series data.

In the general fonn stated in equations (232)-(23^) or (232')-(234'), the

permanent income hypothesis is empty: two additional eq\aations have been specified but so have two additional variables. No empirical data could contradict the hypothesis as it stands. Additional assimiptions are therefore

necessary. The particular additional assumptions that Friedman makes are as

follows :

Assumption I: The transitory components of income and consumption are uncorrelated with one another and with the corresponding peimanent components.
- 99 -

Ass\3inption II: The mean transitory coniponents of consumption and income

are "both zero. 5^7

Assimiption II is clearly \injustified for time-series data. Its chief

justification for cross-section data is that it enables Friedman to explain,

intearpret, and predict a wide variety of empirical phenomena. The justification for Assumption I is given by Friedman as follows:

"[The assumption that the correlation between the transitory components

and the corresponding permanent components] ... are zero seem[s] very mild and

highly plausible. Indeed, by themselves, they have little substantive content

and can almost be regarded as simply completing or translating the definitions

of transitory and permanent components: the qualitative notion that the transitory component is intended to embody is of an accidental and transient

addition to or subtraction from income, which is almost equivalent to saying

an addition or subtraction that is not correlated with the rest of income. ...

The assumption that [the correlation between the two transitory components of

income and consumption] ... is zero is a much stronger assumption. It is primarily this assumption that introduces important substantive content into the

hypothesis and makes it susceptible of contradiction by a wide range of

phenomena capable of being observed. ... The common notion that savings ...

are a »residual* speaks strongly for the plausibility of the assumption. For

this notion implies that consxmiption is determined by rather long term considerations, so that any transitory changes in income lead primarily to addition to assets or to the use of previously accimiulated [cash] balances rather

than to corresponding changes in consumption. ... yet from another point of

view, the assxmiption seems highly implausible. Will not a man who receives an

unexpected windfall use at least some part of it in 'riotous living,' in consumption expenditures? Is it not imreasonable to suppose that he will add the

whole of it to his wealth? In answering these questions much depends on how

'consumption' is defined. The offhand affinnative answer reflects in large

measure, I believe, an implicit definition of consumption in terms of purchases, including durable goods, rather than in terms of the value of

services. If the latter definition is adopted, as seems highly desirable in

applying our hypothesis to empirical data, much that one offhand classifies as

consumption is reclassified as savings. Is not the windfall likely to be used

for the purchase of durable goods? Or, to put it differently, are not the

timing of the replacement of durable goods and additions to the stock of such

goods likely to some extent to be adjusted so as to coincide with windfalls'?"

(16, pp. 26-28.)

5^};/ Assumption II actually is not necessary for the development of the permanent income hypothesis. Friedman indicates this but makes the assixmption

primarily to facilitate exposition. We make it here for the same reason: It

renders the distinction between the permanent income hypothesis as applied to

budget data and the permanent income hypothesis as applied to time series data

more clear-cut. Assumption I applies to both cross-section and time-series

data; Assumption II is relevant only in the case of cross-section data. (See

(16, p. 30).)
- 100 -

Friedman warns us not to interpret the permanent components as corresponding to average life-time values: "It is tempting to interpret the permanent components as corresponding to average lifetime values^ and transitory

components as the difference between such life-time averages and the meas\rred

values in a specific time period. Such an interpretation is not, however,

appropriate, and this for two reasons. In the first place, the experience of

one unit is itself but a small sample from a more extensive hypothetical "universe, so there is no reason to suppose that transitory components average out

to zero over the imit's lifetime• In the second place, and more important, it

seems neither necessary nor desirable to decide in advance the precise meaning

to be attached to *permanent.* The distinction between permanent and transitory is intended to interpret actual behavior: we ... treat consimter units as

if they regarded their income and their consumption as the sum of two such

components, and as if the relation between the permanent components is the one

suggested by o\ar theoretical analysis. This general approach is suggested by

theoretical considerations, but the precise line to be drawn between peniianent

and transitory components is best left to be determined by the data themselves, to be whatever seems to correspond to consumer behavior." (l6, p. 230

Thus the notion of permanent income corresponds to what we would call

"expected normal income;" as such it should be interpreted, not as average

lifetime earnings, but as the income a consumer \m±t expects as his normal

income, where his expectations hold only for a finite period into the future.

The length of this period may be called the particular person's economic horizon. The concept of "permanent" is related to the length of this horizon: the

shorter the horizon, the more of any given income change will be considered

permanent.

When the hypothesis is interpreted in logarithmic form. Assumptions I and

II should, of course, be construed in logarithmic terms as well.

Specification of the permanent income hypothesis in the form (232)-(234)

or (232')-(234') under Assimiptions I-II enables Friedman to interpret the

nature of the usual statistical relationship between measured consumption and

measured income. Suppose that we compute the least squares regression of C^

on y^, then we have, say

Ct = a + b y^ (235)

where a and b are the estimated coefficients. The regression may be taken

over individiials or over time periods, however, maintenance of Assimiption II

suggests that we should consider (235) in the context of a budget study.

Friedman shows that the least squares regression coefficient b may be

interpreted as

b = k (i) • Py (236)

where Py is the fraction of the total variance of income in the group [or over

the period, if we are dealing with time series] contributed by the permanent
- 101 -

component of income. As Friedman states: "The regression coefficient ID measures the difference in consimption associated, on the average, with a one

dollar difference between consumer \mits in measured income. On our permanent

income hypothesis, the size of this difference in consumption depends on two

things: first, how much of the difference in measured income is also a difference in permanent income, since only differences in permanent income are

regarded as affecting consumption systematically; second, how much of permanent income is devoted to cons\;imption. Py measures the firstj k, the second;

so their product equals b. If Py is unity, transient factors are either entirely absent or affect the incomes of all members of the group by the same

amount; a one dollar difference in measured income means a one dollar difference in permanent income and so produces a difference of k in consumption; b

is therefore equal to k. If Py is zero, there are no differences in permanent

income; a one dollar difference in measured income means a one dollar difference in the transitory component of income, which is taken to be uncorrelated

with consumption [by Assumption l]; in consequence, this difference in

measured income is associated with no systematic difference in consumption; b

is therefore zero." (16, p. 32.)

If Assumption II holds, that is, if the mean transitoiy components of

both income and consumption are zero, and if permanent consumption is proportional to income, as is continually assumed in the permanent income hypothesis, (236) yields an extremely simple interpretation of the regression of

consumption on income. Let 97Qy be the elasticity of measured consumption on

measured income as computed at the mean values of measured consumption and

measured income, for the linear case, or as the coefficient of log y-^y in the

logarithmic case. Friedman shows that

r]Cy = Py (237)

at mean measured consxmaption and income in the linear case and throughout in

the logarithmic case. That is, the income elasticity of aggregate consumption, as measured from budget data, measures not the elasticity of permanent

consimption to permanent income (the theoretically relevant variables) but the

proportion of the variance of measured income in the sample contributed by

variation in the permanent component! On Friedman * s interpretation, therefore, the regression of measured consumption on measured income tells us

nothing about the relation of consiamption to income but rather something about

the relation between the distributions of wealth and of measured income in the

sample xander consideration.

It should now be clear why, in dealing with cross-section data. Assumption II is an integral part of the theory, although, as we have remarked, it

is not a necessaiy part. If the mean transitory components of consumption and

income equal zero for the sample londer consideration, then the ratio of the

average consumption for the group to the average income for the group measures

k(i). The elasticity of measured consumption on measured income measures Py.

Both parameters can be identified. If Assxmption II does not hold, neither

Py nor k can be measured separately; only their product can be measured.
- 102 -

A similar situation arises in the case of application of the permanent

income hypothesis to time-series data. As we have indicated, Assxamption II is

imreasonable when applied to aggregate consiimption and income over time; conse<iuently, if only Assumption I could be made, the regression of measured

aggregate consumption on measured aggregate income over a period of time would

tell us something about the product of k(i) with Py, where Py measures the

contribution of the permanent component to the total variance of income over

the period in question; it would not tell us anything about k(i) and Py separately: k(i) could not be measured as the ratio of average measured aggregate

consumption to average measured aggregate income and Py could not be measured

by the elasticity of measured consumption with respect to measured income. An

additional assumption or assumptions must therefore be introduced.

In Chapter V, "Consistency of the Hypothesis with Existing Evidence on

the Relation between Consumption and Income: Time Series Data" (l6, pp. II5-

156), Friedman specifies additional assumptions appropriate in the context of

time-series data. On the basis of an examination of existing time-series

studies of the relation between income and consumption, Friedinan concludes

that permanent income should be susceptible of representation as a weighted

average of incomes for current and past years. The transitory component of

consumption is taken to be a purely random error term; that is, no systematic

relationship between the transitory components of different time periods

exists and the transitory components have mean zero. The possible existence

of rigidities of consimier behavior of a technological or institutional nature

makes this assumption seem somewhat doubtful.

The particular model which Friedman constructs to represent the relation

between what people consider the permanent component of income to be and past

measured income is closely related to the model derived from Hicks' definition

of the elasticity of expectations. Friedman assumes that

yt = a / e-a[t-X] y^ ¿L,j^ 55/ (238)

«/«oo

Equation (238) may be derived from the following equation:

dt

*

= <^ [yt - yt] (239)

¿5/ Friedman actually allows for the expectation of a time-trend in permanent income. But this refinement need not concern us here.

In the actual fitting procedure, (238) is approximated by a discrete summation. The fitting procedure that Friedman uses is essentially the same as

the iterative procedure described above.
- 103 -

which is the differential equation analogue of (33) (see page 2k). in the

case of (238), however^ static expectations, that is, the "belief that the permanent component of income is equal to measured income, is given hy a =00

rather than a = 1, as when the discrete representation of (33) is assumed.

Implications of Friedman's Hypothesis

Of the many implications of Friedman's permanent income hypothesis for

the analysis of the demand for individual commodities, we can discuss only a

few of the most general: (l) The effect of the type of group covered by the

sample on the income elasticities for individual items of consiamption derived

from cross-section data; (2) the effect of the length and type of period

covered on the income elasticities derived from time-series data; and (3) the

valid way to combine income elasticities derived from cross-section data with

other time-series data in a demand analysis.

Measurement of income elasticities from cross-section data.—Consider the

planned expenditures on, or the planned quantity to be consumed oí, an individual item of consumption like food. We may expect this quantity to be

related, via consumer tastes and preferences, to the prices (current and/or

expected) of food and other items, and to the income the family expects to

receive, or the permanent component of income. If current and expected prices

may be taken as the same, we may suppose, without loss of generality, that

each consumer \mit in a cross-section faces approximately the same prices

[current and/or expected]. 56/

In Chapter VIII, Friedman describes the situation as follows: "[A consumer xinit's] ... measured expenditvires on food differs from its planned

expenditures because of a transitory component of food expenditures, and its

measured income differs from its permanent income because of a transitory

component of income. When the regression of measured expenditures on measured

income is computed from budget data for a group of families—the regression

that has come to be called an 'Engel cui^e'—the transitory component of food

expenditures tends to average out, 57/ but the transitory component of income

56/ This is, of co\irse, the usual assixmption with regard to prices in any

cross-section analysis. Dropping the assumption of static price expectations

leads to difficulties similar to those which are encountered when we drop the

assumption that measured income is the relevant income variable. In the

latter case, we assume that diversity of past experience leads to expected

incomes systematically different from measured incomes; we neglect the distribution of coefficients of expectations among the members of the sample. In

the case of prices this distribution is of principal importance. A discussion

of the implications of non-static price expectations in cross-section analysis

would take us too far afield here, however.

57/ As indicated on page 102, this may not be the case if rigidities exist

in consumer behavior of a technological or institutional nature.
- 104 •

does not. ... In consequence^ the elasticity of measured expenditiares with

respect to measured income reflects not only ... [consumers'] tastes and preferences hut also the transitory components of income.

"Let Cf stand for the mean observed consumption on food of families with

a given measured income, and assume that the transitory component of food expenditures is uncorrelated with the permanent or transitory component of

income and averages zero for the group as a whole, so that c^ be regarded as

the mean permanent component of food expenditures. The elasticity of c^ with

respect to measured income then is

^"f y

Cf y dy Cf

dCf

" cLy*

dyf y ^

äy y*

*

yf

Cf

dCf yj

~ dyj Cf

dyj

äy yj

= 77 * .

'cf yf 77 *

'yf y

58/ (240)

r ^

[where y^ represents the permanent component of meastired income based on an

economic horizon for food expenditures]. 59/

"But, on our hypothesis, y* = iTpT ^*> §9i/ ^hich means that [if y* = y*]

^yf , y ^ 1 dc^ ^ k(i)y

f

^ yj y dy ' y* " k(iy dy ' c*

dc^ ^ y ^

dy c* = Vr^^r ' c*y (2^1)

58/ The notation in (24o) is altered slightly so as to correspond to the

notation used elsewhere in this paper.

59/ The rationale for distinguishing between permanent components appropriate to various categories of consxmiption and that appropriate to total consumption is given below. Althoiigh Friedman explicitly assumes that the same

concept of the permanent component applies equally to total consumption and

its individual categories, he is in some doubt as to its validity. As we

shall see, differences in the concepts of permanent income appropriate to

various categories of consximption is one of the key reasons for doubting the

adequacy of Friedman's permanent income hypothesis.

60/ See equation (232) on page 96 .
- 105 -

so that

The first elasticity on the right hand side^ between permanent food expenditures and permanent income^ reflects the influence of tastes and preferences

proper; the second^ the influence of transitory factors affecting income.

"It follows that the differences among groups of families in the observed

income elasticity of particular categories of consuniption cannot be interpreted as reflecting solely the influence of differences in tastes or of

differences in prices or similar factors affecting opportimities [such as

income^ sici]; they may [also] reflect a third set of forces^ namely, differences in a particular characteristic of the income distribution, the

importance of transitory components of income. 62/" (16, pp. 206-20?.)

If the elasticity of measured food expenditures, or, for that matter,

expenditures on any particular category of consiomption, with respect to measured income depends in part on the contribution of the permanent component to

the variance of measured income, it follows that the income elasticity

obtained from a budget study depends crucially on the group of households

covered by the sample.

For example, consider two groups one of which typically has highly variable incomes and the other of which typically has stable incomes (for example,

farmers versus civil servants). On the basis of the permanent income hypothesis we would expect the income elasticity for a particular consumption good

to be lower for the first group than for the second, even if the distribution

of tastes, income, and the like were the same for the two groups. The reason

for this is simply that, for the group whose incomes are typically highly

variable, the permanent component varies much less than measured incomes;

whereas, for the group whose incomes are quite stable, the variation of the

measured income within the group is accounted for almost entirely by the

variation of the permanent component. Thus we would expect both 77y^ and Py

to be smaller for the first group than for the second.

61/ The notation in (24l) and (242) is altered slightly from Friedman's

original notation.

62/ This statement in qualitative form follows directly from (24o). If we

wish to express it in usable form

^Cf y = ^Cf y* • Py (i)

^

we must assume, first, that y^^ = y* and, second, that the mean transitory components of food consumption and total consumption equal zero. Both assxmptions are questionable.
- 106 -

Similarly^ if we compare the elasticities of expenditure on particular

categories of consumption with respect to measured income for two representative samples^ one of the urban population of the United States and the other

of the total population of the United States^ we might expect to find the

former higher than the latter, since a sample of the urban population excludes

the farm population and this population might be expected to have more highly

variable incomes than those of the xjirban population. In general, we may suppose that the more typically stable a group's incomes the more nearly will an

elasticity of measured consumption expenditures (for total consumption or for

an individual category of consumption) on measured income tend to approximate

the elasticity with respect to the permanent component of income appropriate

to that group.

Measurement of income elasticities from time'-series data.—In the case of

cross-section data, the characteristics of the group sampled are of crucial

importance in the interpretation of income elasticities; in the case of income

elasticities computed from time-series data, the characteristics and, particularly, the length of the period considered are of crucial importance. In

Chapter V, Friedman malees this point in reference to total consumption as

follows :

"The length of the period is important because, other things the same ...

[the contribution of the permanent component to the variance of measured income], and so the observed income elasticity, can be expected to be larger,

the longer the period covered, provided that the society in question is undergoing a systematic secular change in income. The total variance of [measured]

income equals the variance contributed by the transitory component plus the

variance contributed by the permanent component, given our assumption that the

two components are uncorrelated. The variance contributed by the transitory

component is not systematically affected by lengthening the period: by definition, the transitory components are largely random and short-lived. True, the

variance may be larger at one time than another—this is why the historical

characteristics of the period are important—^but there is no reason why it

should be systematically larger or smaller for a long than for a short

period. 63/ The variance contributed by the permanent component, on the other

hand, tends to be systematically larger, the longer the period covered, for

the more widely separated two dates are, the larger will tend to be the secular difference in income between them. ... the ratio of the variance contributed by the peimanent component to the total variance [of measured income],

will therefore tend to be higher, the longer the period, and to approach unity

as the period is indefinitely lengthened. If secular change were the only

63/ Friedman points out that this statement should be taken as referring to

the variance of logarithmic components rather than the actual values. With a

secular increase in income, we expect the variance of the transitory component, expressed in actual values, to increase over time; hence, imless we

express our variables in logarithms, we expect the variance of the transitory

component to be systematically larger for longer than for shorter periods.
- 107 -

source of variation in the permanent component the lower limit of •.. [the

ratio of the variance contributed "by the permanent component to total variance] would be zero and this limit would tend to be approached as the length

of the period covered approached zero* Since there are other sources of

variation in the permanent component [over time], all one can say is that ••.

a lower limit greater than zero [will tend to be approached] as the length of

the period approaches zero/' (l6, pp. 125-127-)

Friedman finds that this expectation is well fulfilled by the elasticities computed from regressions of measured total consumption on measured

income for periods of different lengths: the elasticities are systematically

lower for shorter than for longer periods. With certain qualifications, this

implication of the permanent income hypothesis may be extended to individual

categories of consxmiption: If we are willing to accept the assimptions \mderlying equation (2^2) (see page 105), '^^^^^ "the elasticity of the demand for

food with respect to measured income, obtained from time series data, tends to

be 6k/ the product of the elasticity with respect to permanent income and the

proportion of the variance of measured income contributed by the permanent

component* Thus, for example, the income elasticity computed for the period

between the World Wars I and II should be lower than the elasticity computed

for a period including both the interwar and postwar periods. 65/

The only reservation we may have to this as a general statement is that

the assumptions on which (2^2) is based may not be fulfilled when we deal with

elasticities estimated from time-series: First, the permanent component appropriate to the particular category of consumption under consideration may not

be the same as that appropriate to total consumption. Thus, if the permanent

component appropriate to, say, food is all of measured income, the income

elasticity computed for the interwar period might be greater than, less than,

or equal to the elasticity computed for both interwar and postwar periods*

Second, systematic transitory components in the expenditure devoted to the

particular categoiy may occur, for the reasons mentioned above; in general,

however, this might be expected to strengthen the qualitative conclusions

based on the permanent income hypothesis but the quantitative relationship,

(242), would no longer hold.

Combining income elasticities from cross-section data with other timeseries data.—Several recent studies of the demand for individual commodities,

for example. Stone (30); Wold and Jureen (36), and Tobin (33)> attempt to combine cross-section and time-series data. The procedure is generally to obtain

an income elasticity from a cross-section sample and to assume that this elasticity applies, with or without certain minor adjustments, to the aggregates

6k/ "Tends to be" rather than "is", since the correlations between prices

anéTmeasured income are not taken into account.

65/ This is in fact true for meat; see Nerlove, Marc, ^e Predictive Test

as a Tool for Research: The Demand for Meat in the United States, M.A. thesis,

the Johns Hopkins University, 1955. Numerous other examples could probably be

cited.
- 108 -

over time. The income elasticity so obtained is inserted into the demand

fimction and the remaining parameters are estimated from time-series data. It

is clear that this procedure is inconsistent with the permanent income hypothesis; as Friedman states in Chapter V: "On our hypothesis, income elasticities of [total] expenditures computed from time series and from budget data

are estimates of different things. Neither tells us anything directly about

consiomption behavior. ... Both measure instead a feature of the income structure, and they measure different features. The budget elasticity measures the

fraction of the variance among incomes of a group of consumer vinlts at a point

î? ^^^^ contributed by differences in permanent components. The time series

elasticity measures the fraction of the variance among aggregate or per capita

incomes of a series of time units contributed by differences in permanent

components. ... our conclusion that the elasticities computed from budget data

and from time series are estimates of different magnitudes applies also to the

elasticity for a particular category. ... The income elasticity computed from

budget data can be expected to be the same (on the average) as that computed

from time series data for a particular span of years only if transitory components of income have the same importance for the two bodies of data. There

is no reason to expect the transitory components to have the same importance,

and ..., if they do for one span of years, they will not for a longer or

shorter span." (l6, pp. 136-I37.)

On the basis of equation (2^2) Friedman suggests a way to combine crosssection and time series data which is consistent with the permanent income

hypothesis: Simply divide the income elasticity for a particular commodity by

the income elasticity of total consumption expenditures, both estimated from

the same budget study. In this way we obtain an estimate of the elasticity of

expenditures on, or demand for, the particular commodity under consideration

with respect to permanent income. This estimate is a valid one only on two

assumptions: (l) the same concept of permanent income appropriate to the particular commodity is appropriate to total consumption; and (2) the mean

transitory components of expenditure on, or consiamption of, the commodity and

of total consumption are zero. An estimate of aggregate permanent income over

time may be constructed from the procedure which Friedman uses to estimate the

consxmption function from time series data, or by the non-iterative procedures

suggested in this paper. The resulting series and the estimated elasticity

with respect to permanent income may be combined with other time-series data

to obtain estimates of the other parameters which appear in the demand function for the commodity under consideration.

We have already indicated the reason why the second of the two assimiptions underlying the procedure discussed above may be suspect; Friedman

himself suggests that the relation between the permanent and transitory components of income may be interpreted in terms of the length of the economic

horizon of the consumer, hence: "One possible source of difficiaty with this

approach [that is, the procedure discussed above] is the necessity of taking

permanent income to mean the same thing for the different categories of consumption. We have interpreted the exact meaning of permanent income in terms

of the horizon of the consumer unit. Now there seems no reason why the horizon should be the same for all individual categories of consumption and some
- 109 -

why it should differ systeinatically. For example, it seems highly plausible

that housing expenditures are planned in terms of a longer horizon, and so a

different concept of permanent income, than expenditxires on, say, food. If

this turns out to be a meaningful way of looking at the problem, the concept

of permanent income applicable to total consumption will have to be regarded

as an average of the concepts applicable to each category.

If both consumption and income are properly defined, it does not seem

reasonable that the horizons for different categories of consumption should

differ greatly from one another. Only if indivisabilities, difficulties of

short-run substitution, or various institutional factors are introduced would

the concept of differing horizons appear to be useful, but, as we have indicated elsewhere in this paper, it may be useful to treat this type of rigidity

differently from expectational rigidity in consumer behavior. We thus think

of expenditures for housing in terms of rental (or rental value) rather than

in terms of purchase price; if it were not for imperfections in the capital

and housing markets, an individual consumer experiencing a rise in his income

which he considered to be peirmanent with respect to total consumption, or any

of its categories, would iiomediately adjust his housing expenditure. Even if

we accept Friedman*s view that the concept of permanent income might be different for different categories of consumption, it is plausible that it would

not differ greatly for highly similar commodities. In any case the attractive

simplicity of Friedman's permanent income hypothesis is greatly reduced if one

must assimie different concepts of permanent income for different categories of

consumption.

Tests of the Permanent Income Hypothesis

First test.—The notion that the concept of permanent income appropriate

to individual categories of consimiption ought really to be the same from category to category at once suggests a simple test of the adequacy of the permanent income: When dealing with time-series, Friedman's model suggests that

both total consumption and each individual category of consumption depends on

income taken with a distributed lag. No mention is made of whether the consumption of particular commodities depends on prices taken with a distributed

lag, but it is explicitly assumed that the transitory components of total

consimiption and the consumption of individual items have zero mean and are

independently distributed. Thus, Friedman's permanent income hypothesis

appears to assimie only a distributed lag in income.

If Friedman's hypothesis is to provide a ixseful tool for the analysis of

the demand for individual commodities, the distribution of lag should be the

same for each individual commodity and for total consimiption, or, at least,'

for similar commodities or groups of commodities. SSj It we assxmie the

66/ It is interesting to note that this test of Friedman's hypothesis was

suggested by Friend and Kravis (ij, p. 5^7)- Their work came to the attention

of the author only after his results had been obtained.
- lio -

distribution of lag to be generated by a model of expectation formation, such

as (239) or (33) > the distribution of lag can be summarized by the value of a

single parameter, namely the coefficient or elasticity of expectations.

Thus should be the same for every individual commodity and for total consumption. In order to simplify the computations, the model represented by

equation (33)> rather than by (239), vas used.

In addition to total consumption, the demand for all food and the demand

for meat were investigated. Meat and all food are similar commodities as

compared, say, to housing expenditures or clothing expenditures, and we would

not, therefore, expect the "horizons" appropriate to these two commodities to

differ greatly, although we might allow some difference between food and meat,

on the one hand, and total consumption on the other.

Let y(t) = log of observed income during period t

y*(t) = log of permanent or "expected normal" income

C(t) = log of observed aggregate consxmption

q^(t) = log of the consumption of all food

qj^(t) = log of the consumption of meat

IPfit) = log of the price of food

Pjjj(t) = log of the price of meat

For statistical purposes these variables, except for y^(t), were defined as

follows :

y(t) : Per capita disposable personal income (Commerce definition)

deflated by the BLS consximer price index (19^7-49=100)

C(t) : Per capita personal consumption expenditures (Commerce

definition) deflated by the CPI

qf(t): The Agricultural Marketing Service index of per capita

civilian food consumption at retail (not expenditure)

qjjj(t): Total civilian meat consumption per capita, in pounds,

excluding lard

Pf(t): The Bureau of Labor Statistics index of food prices at retail

deflated by the CPI

Pjji(t): An Agriciiltural Marketing Service index of the retail prices

of all meat excluding lard, deflated by the CPI
- Ill -

The data on observed total consiomption and income are not entirely appropriate for this test: the Commerce definition of consimiption includes manyitems which are properly savings^ and the Commerce definition of disposable

income excludes many items which might properly be considered as income (for

exsunple, social security taxes). Friedinan has constructed series on consumption and income more appropriate for work of this kind, but these series were,

at the time of writing, unavailable to the author of this paper. The computational difficulty of constructing such series precluded their use in the

simple test presented here.

The basic equations to be estimated are a consumption function, a demand

function for all food, and a demand function for meat:

C(t) = aoo + aoi y^(t) + uo(t) (243)

qj(t) = aj^Q + a^i Pf(t) + aj^g y^i"^) "^ ^l("^) (2^^)

%i(^) = ^20 + ^21 Pm("^) •*" ^22 y*(^) "^ ^(^) (^^5)

where uo(t), ui(t), and U2(t) are residual terms. As our expectational equation we have

y*(t) - y*(t-l) = a [y(t) - y*(t-l)] (2tó)

where oc is an elasticity of expectations (since y*(t) and y(t) are expressed

in logarithmic form).

The system (243)-(245), with expectational equation (246), may be reduced

by the single or multiple equation methods. 67/ Performing the reduction, we

have

C(t) = BQQ a + agi a y(t) + (l-a) C(t-l) +

uo(t) - (l-a) uo(t-l) (247)

q^(t) = a^Q a + a-^^ ^ yi"^) "»" (l-^) ^fi^-l) +

^11 Pff"*^) - ^11 (1-^) Pf('t-l) +

ui(t) - (1- a) ui(t-l) (248)

^m^"^) " ^20 ot + a22 a y(t) + (l- a) qjt-l) +

^21 Pm(^) - ^21 (1-oc) Çm('t-l) +

U2(t) r (l-a) U2(t-1) (249)

67/ Since only one expectational variable enters each equation, the two

methods amoiont to the same thing in this case.
• 112 -

The system (2^3)-(245) is a separable system and may be separated prior

to reduction, that is, equation (2^3) may be used to eliminate y*(t) from

{2kk) and (245). In this case reduction after separation is not necessary

since the separated equations contain no further expectational variables.

Separation leads to the following two equations, alternative to (2^2) and

(2^9), respectively:

9-12^0 ^12 ^("t)

<lf (^) = (^10 - ~^^ ^ i;^ c(^) ^ ^11 Pf -^ ^i(^) - -"5^ (250)

Sn(t) " (-20 - ^) * ^ =(*) * -21 P.(t) + -^(t) - ^ (251)

On Friedman's permanent income hypothesis, the coefficient aoi should be

one, since all the variables are expressed in logarithms.

In an earlier section we suggested that, as a general rule, a system of

equations should not be separated prior to estimation because an element would

then be introduced which wo\ild. tend to bias the estimates of certain coefficients in the estimated equation. This principal is illustrated by (250) and

(251): Since C(t) is positively correlated with ug(t) by equation (2^3), it

tends to be negatively correlated with u-|^(t) - UQ^t) or U2(t) - UQ(t), the

residuals in (250) and (251), respectively. There are two reasons, however,

why separation should not introduce serious correlation between C(t) and the

resid^ials of (250) and (251): (l) the correlation between total consumption

expenditures and expected normal income is likely to be high, and (2) the

transitory components of food and meat consumption are likely to be highly

correlated with the transitory component of total consumption expenditures.

Since

2 var u^it) - cov [uQ(t), u^(t)]

^C(t)[ui(t).uo(t)] = var luo(t) - Ui(t)J var Ct ^^^^^

for i=l, 2, it follows that this correlation is low if var uo('fc) is small and

if cov [\io('t), %(t)] does not exceed var UQ(t). Wold (35) shows that under

these circimistances the bias in the least sqxiares estimates is not great.

Consequently, it is possible to justify estimating equations (25O) and (251).

Regressions based on eqixations (2^7)-(251) are presented in table 1. In

addition to the estimates of the coefficients in the regression, table 1 gives

the square of the multiple correlation coefficient, the number of observations, the Durbin-Watson statistic, the estimated or assumed elasticity of

expectations, and the estimated elasticity of total consimiption or demand with

respect to permanent (or expected normal) income. Each regression was run for

two periods: the interwar period, 1920-'^1, and the interwar and postwar

periods, 1920-41 and 19^8-55.
Table 1,—Demand for aggregate consumption, food, and meat based on the permanent income hypothesis: Least sqxaares regressions

and related statistical data 1/

Aggregate

consumption,

equation (24?)

Item

1920-41

1920-41

and

1948-55

Food, based on equation—

(248)

1920-41

1920-41

and

1948-55

(250)

1920-41

1920-41

and

1948-55

Meat, based on equation—

(2l»9)

1920-41

1920-iH

and

191*8-55

(251)

1920-in

1920-41

and

1948-55

Regression coefficient for sped- :

fied independent variable:

y(t) : 0

C(t) :

C(t-l)

<lf(t-l)

qb(*-i) •••

Pf(t)

PmW ••

Pf(t-l)

Pm(*-1)

: (

729 0.726

056) ( .057)

0.199

( .030)

0.291

( .028)

0.296

( .016)

0.351 0.387

( .074) ( .060)

0.422

( .101)

0.554

( .063)

099 .209

077) ( .064)

... ... ...

.182

( -128)

.266

( .108)

* "* "'* '*

w<- »... _..»

"" "

-.065 -.088 -.133 -.137

( .058) ( .058) ( .045) ( .038)

.231 .432

( .161) ( .117)

-.470 -.485 -.475 --458

( .088) ( .076) ( .086) ( ,072)

Constant term

R2

Nimiber of observations :

Durbin-Watson statistic, d : 1,

Estimate of— :

The elasticity of the dependent

variable with respect to permsuient income

(

... ... -.094

( .045)

-.052

( .045)

— — — — — —

-.015

( .085)

.093

( .067)

— — — ———

315 .122 1.545 1.323 1.681 1.682 1.774 1.134 2.120 1.855

97 .99 .92 .97 .85 .96 .74 -.83 .62 .76

22 30 22 30 22 30 22 30 22 30

56 1.48 1.86 1.89 1.52 2/1.42 2.13 2.21 2/1.08 3/.92

90 •79 .82 .73 4/. 90 4/. 79 •77 .57 4/.9O 4/. 79

08) { .06) ( .13) ( .11) ( .16) ( .12)

.81 .92 .24 .29 .29 .30 .46 .68 .42 .55

I

1/ Numbers in parentheses beneath the coefficients are their respective standard errors. 2/ Durbin-Watson test inconclusive

at the 5 percent probability level.' 3/ Significant positive serial correlation. 4/ Assumed?
- 114 -

The regressions based on equation (2^7) appear to indicate that the elasticity of total consiJinption expenditures with respect to income is not one as

suggested by the permanent income hypothesis. If aQi = 1, as required by the

permanent income hypothesis, the sum of the coefficients of y(t) and C(t-l),

in the regressions based on (2^7)^ should equal one. Thus we can test the

significance of the difference between the two relevant elasticities from one

by testing the significance of the difference of the sum of the coefficients

of y(t) and C(t-l) from one, A likelihood ratio test may easily be derived to

test the null hypothesis that the s\m of the coefficients of y(t) and C(t-l)

is one. The likelihood ratio for the period 1920-41 is kS, and for the period

1920-41 and 1948-55 is 12. Since the value of Chi-square for one degree of

freedom is 11 at the 0.001 probability level, we reject the null hypothesis

and conclude that the estimated elasticities of total consumption with respect

to permanent income do differ significantly from one.- This result, however,

should be interpreted with care. First, the use of more-or-less inappropriate

data on consumption and income may have led to this result inconsistent with

the pennanent income hypothesis. Second, the fact that the estimated elasticities rise when a longer period is used is consistent with the permanent

income hypothesis, and suggests that some transitory component of income may

be affecting the regression. Third, although the Durbin-Watson statistic does

not indicate the presence of positive serial correlation, it is sufficiently

low to warrant caution. 68/

The most interesting row of table 1 is the second to last. There the

estimates of the elasticities of expectations based on the various regressions

are presented. Although the elasticities derived from the different equations

differ depending on the length of the period, the differences are more marked

as between commodities, especially between total consumption and food, on the

one hand, and meat, on the other. In addition, when consumption, rather than

income, is used in the regressions for food and meat, the multiple correlations are markedly lower for the interwar period, and the same is true for the

interwar plus postwar period in the case of meat. The only significant or

inconclusive Durbin-Watson tests are also found for these regressions.

Are these differences in the elasticities of expectations among commodities and total consumption significant? If they are, we have reason to doubt

the adequacy and/or utility of Friedman*s permanent income hypothesis as

applied to individual categories of consumption. An F-test, based on a test

described in Meinken (25, pp. 100-102), was used to test the significance of

the differences between the coefficients of C(t-l), qf(t-l), and qnj(t-l) in

the regressions based on equations (247) to (249). The procedure followed is

described in full in the Appendix. A significant F-ratio indicates a significant difference among the coefficients, and, hence, among the elasticities of

expectations for total consiomption, all food, and meat. The F-ratio for the

regressions using data for the period 1920-41 is 20, with 2 and 53 degrees of

68/ If positive serial correlation in the residuals of (247) is present, the

estimates of the coefficients are biased, since C(t-l) enters as an independent variable.
• 115 -

freedom; the F-ratio for the combined periods 1920-41 and 19^4-8-55 is 26l, with

2 and 77 degrees of freedom. Each ratio is highly significant.

We cannot, of course, definitely conclude on the basis of the simple and,

perhaps, crude test that the permanent income,hypothesis is false; all we can

say is that it does not appear useful when applied to individual categories of

consumption.

Second test.—A simpler, alternative hypothesis is suggested by considerations discussed in this paper with reference to rigidities in consimier

behavior due to technological or institutional factors. If these factors are

the sole causes of rigidities, we have distributed lags in both prices and

income, but within any eq\:iation the distributions of lag is the same for both

price and income. In place of eqiaation (246), we have three equations of the

same form as equation (23) (see page l8):

C(t) - C(t-l) = Ô ^ [c*(t) - C(t.l)] (253)

qf(t) - qf(t-l) = Ô f [qf(t) - qf(t-l)] (254)

am(^) - qm(t-l) = S ^ [qj(t) - q^^Ct-l)] (255)

Where C*(t), qf(t), and q^(t) are the long-run eqviilibrivun values of total

consumption and the quantities demanded, and ô g, S^^, and Ô are the parameters determining the distributions of lag. Our basic demand equations are:

C*(t) = aQQ + SQ^ y(t) + UQ(t) (256)

q*(t) = a-Lo + »11 Pf (*) + »12 y(*) + «l("t) (257)

<lî(*) = »20 + ^21 Pm(*) + ^22 ^i*) + "2^*) (258)

When equations (256)-(258) are reduced we have:

C(t) =3^0 5^, + aoi 0^ y(t) + (l- 6^.) C(t-l) + 5 ^^ uo(t) (259)

OLf(t) = aio of. + a-^-L 5^ p^(t) + a-^g ^f y("t) +

(1-0^) qf.(t-l) +0^ Uj_(t) (260)
- 116 .

<ljt) = ago 5 m -^ ^21 ^m Pm(^) + ^22 ^ jji y(t) +

(1-ÔJ qj^(t-l) + ôin^2(^) (261)

Equation (253) suggests a regression of exactly the same form as is suggested by (2^4-7); but equations (260) and (26l) suggest somewhat different ones

than those under the permanent income hypothesis. Comparing (26o) with (2kQ)

and (261) with (2^9) we see that p^(t-l) does not enter a regression based on

(260) and p^(t-l) does not enter a regression based on (26l). The fact that

the coefficients of these variables in the regressions presented in table 1

are not significantly different from zero or are of the wrong sign suggests

that the alternative hypothesis may have some merit- The coefficients of

C(t-l), qjp(t-l), and qjj^(t-l), of course, need not be the same. Regressions

based on equations (259)-(261) are presented in table 2 for the period 1920-41

and the combined periods 1920-ifl and 19^8-55. As can be seen, the results

compare favorably with those presented in table 1,

It is perhaps too early to conclude that technological and institutional

rigidities play a greater role in demand analysis than rigidities of an expectational nature. Nonetheless the results presented in this section suggest

that this may be the case. If so, it would simplify matters greatly. In

order, however, to reach a firm conclusion, further research is necessary. It

is hoped that this paper makes a modest contribution to that research.

LITERATURE CITED

(1) Aitken, A. C.

1935- On Least Squares and Linear Combinations of Observations. Proc.

Royal Soc. Edinburgh. 55:42-48.

(2) Alt, F. P.

1942. Distributed Lags. Econometrica. 10:113-128.

(3) Arrow, Kenneth J., and Nerlove, Marc

1957- A Note on Expectations and Stability. Tech. Rpt. 4l, Dept.

Econ., Stanford Univ. l4 pp. [Processed.]

(4) Berger, J.

1953. On Koyck's and Fisher's Methods for Calciilating Distributed

Lags. Metroeconomica. 5:89-90.

(5) Cagan, Phillip

1956. The Monetary Dynamics of Hyper-Inflations. In Friedman, Milton,

ed.. Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money. 260 pp., illus.

Chicago.

(6) Chernoff, Herman, and Divinsky, Nathan

1953- The Computation of Maximum-Likelihood Estimates of Linear

Structural Equations. In Hood, Wm. C, and Koopmans,

Tjailing C, ed.. Studies in Econometric Method, Cowles

Commission for Research in Economics Monogr. l4, 324 pp.,

illus. New York.
. 117 -

Table 2.--Demand for aggregate consimption, food, and meat "based on an alternative to the permanent income hypothesis: Least squares regressions and

related statistical data l/

Item

Regression coefficient

for specified independent variable:

y(t) ..

c(t-i)

<if(t-i)

Pf(t) .

Pm(t) .

Constant term

Number of observations

Durbln-Watson statistic, d

Estimate of—

S

Long-run elasticity

wi-üi respect to—

Income

Price

Aggregate

consumption,

eqijation (259)

1920-41

1920-41

and

1948-55

Food,

equation (26o)

1920-41

1920-41

and

1948-55

Heat,

equation (26l)

1920-41

1920-41

and

1948-55

0.729

(.056)

.099

(.077)

.315

.97

22

1.56

.901

.81

0.726

(.057)

.209

(.064)

.122

• 99

30

.791

.92

.151

(.139)

-•155

(.042)

1.563

.89

22

.237

(.106)

-.142

(.036)

1.366

.97

30

.248

(.127)

-.478

(.076)

1.730

.73

22

.26 .29

-.183 -.186

0.217 0.219 0.350 0.421

(.031) (.028) (.071) (.056)

.371

(.111)

-.429

(.065)

1.263

.82

30

1.48 1.91 1.89 2.16 2.04

.849 .763 .752 .629

.47 .67

-.636 -.682

1/ Numbers in parentheses "beneath the coefficients are their respective

standard errors.
- 118 -

(7) Chow^ G. C.

1957• Demand for Automobiles in the United States: A Case Study in

Consumer Durables. Amsterdam, [in press.]

(8) Cochrane, D., and Orcutt, G. H.

19^9. Application of Least Squares Regression to Relationships Containing Auto-correlated Error Terms. Jour. Amer. Statis.

Asso. 4i|-: 32-61.

(9) Cramer, Harald

1946. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. 575 PP-> illus. Princeton,

N. J.

(10) Durbin, J., and Watson, G. S.

1950-51. Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regressions,

I and II. Biometrika. 37:^09-^28 and 38:159-178.

(11) Enthoven, Alain C, and Arrow, K. J.

1956. A Theorem on Expectations and the Stability of Equilibrium.

Econometrica. 2k : 288-293.

(12) Farrell, M. J.

1954. The Demand for Motor-Cars in the United States. Jour. Royal

Statis. Soc, Ser. A. 117:171-201, illus.

(13) Fisher, Irving

1925. Our Unstable Dollar and the So-called Business Cycle. Jour.

Amer. Statis. Asso. 20:179-202, illus.

(1^)

(15)

1930. The Theory of Interest as Determined by Impatience to Spend

Income and Opportunity to Invest It. 566 pp., illus.

New York.

1937. Note on a Short-cut Method for Calculating Distributed Lags.

Internatl. Statis. Inst. B\ill. 29:323-327-

(16) Friedman, Milton

1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. National Bureau of

Economic Research. 2^3 pp., illus. Princeton, N. J.

(17) Friend, Irwin, and Kravis, Irving B.

1957. Consumption Patterns and Permanent Income. Amer. Econ. Rev.

May issue (Proc), ^^-7:536-555-

(18) Hicks, J. R.

19^6. Value and Capital. 2d ed. 3^0 pp., illus. Oxford, England*

(19) Hurwicz, Leonid

1950. Least-squares Bias in Time-series. In Koopmans, Tjailing C,

ed.. Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, Cowles

Commission for Research in Economics Monogr. 10, ^38 pj?.

New York.

(20) Klein, Lawrence R.

1953, A Textbook of Econometrics. 355 PP-> illus. Evanston. 111.

(21) Koopmans, Tjailing C, and Hood, William C.

1953* The Estimation of Simultaneous Linear Economic Relationships.

In Hood, William C, and Koopmans, Tjailing C, ed.. Studies

in Econometric Method, Cowles Commission for Research in

Economics Monogr. l4, 324 pp., illus. New York.
- 119 -

(22) Koyck, L- M.

195U. Distributed Lags and Investment Analysis. Ill pp.^ illus.

Amsterdam.

(23) Mann, H. B., and Wald, A.

1943. On the Statistical Treatment of Linear Stochastic Difference

Equations. Econometrica. 11:173-220.

(24) Marshall, Alfred

1936. Principles of Economics, 8th ed. 871 pp., illus. London.

(25) Meinken, Kenneth W.

1953. The Demand and Price Structure for Oats, Barley, and Sorghum

Grains. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bxill. IO8O. 102 pp., illus.

(26) Nerlove, Marc

1956. Estimates of the Elasticities of Supply of Selected Agricultural

Commodities. Jour. Farm Econ. 38:496-509.

(27)

1957. A Note on Long-run Automobile Demand. Jour. Mkt. 22:57-64,

illus.

(28) Phillips, A. W.

1956. Some Notes on the Estimation of Time-forms of Reactions in

Interdependent Dynamic Systems. Económica. 23:99-113•

(29) Roos, C. F., and von Szeliski, Victor

1939- Factors Governing Changes in Automobile Demand. In General

Motors Corporation, Dynamics of Automobile Demand, 139 PP'>

illus. New York.

(30) Stone, Richard

1954. The Measurement of Consimers' Expenditures and Behavior in the

United Kingdom, 1920-1938. hkd pp., illus. Cambridge,

England.

(31) Tinbergen, J.

1949. Long-term Foreign Trade Elasticities. Metroeconomica. 1:17^-

185.

(32)

1951. Econometrics. Transi, from the Dutch by H. Ryken Van 01st.

258 pp., illus. Philadelphia, Pa.

(33) Tobin, James A.

1950. A Statistical Demand Fimction for Food in the U.S.A. Jour.

Royal Statis. Soc, Ser. A. 113:113-1^0, illus.

(3^) Wilks, S. S.

1950. Mathematical Statistics. 284 pp., illus. Princeton, N. J.

[Processed.]

(35) Wold, Herman, and Faxer, P.

1957- On the Specification of Error in Regression Analysis. Annals

Math. Statis. 28:265-267.

(36) and Jureen, Lars

1953* Demand Analysis: A Study in Econometrics. 358 pp., illus.

New York.
- 120 -

APPENDIX

A Test of Significance for the Equality of the Elasticities

of Expectations Obtained for Several Commodities

Equations (245)-(2it9) may he written

C(t) = TToo + '^Ol y('t) + "02 C(t-l) + Vo(t) (262)

qf(t) = ^^10+ '^ii y(t) + ^2.2 PfCt) + ^^13 Pf(t-l)

•^ -"Ik tlf(t-l) + v-L(t) (263)

q.m(*) = ^^20+ ^^21 y('t) + ^^22 Pm(*) + ''23 Pm("'^-l)

+ "2J+ 1m(*-l) + ^2^^) (264)

We wish to test whether

^^02= ^^14 =^^24= .. (265)

where '^ .. is the common value of the coefficients of C(t-l), qf(t-l), and

<lm("t-l) •

The test may be carried out in the following steps:

Step 1: Compute the adjusted sums of squares of the dependent variables

Mc(t)c{t) - ^01 My(t)C(t) (266)

%f(t)qf (t) - ^11 My(t)qf (t) - ^12 ^p^(t)qf (t)

- ^13 %f(t-l)qf(t) (267)

Mqm(t)qm(t) - ^21 My(t)qjt) " - 22 %(t)q„(t)

- -23 %(t-l)qjt) (268)

Add these together and call the sijui M^^-

Step 2: Compute the adjusted moments of C(t) or C(t-l); qf(t) on qf(t-l);

qjn(t) on qjn(t-l) after the effects of the other variables have "been removed.

That is^ compute

^^C(t)C(t-l) - -01 My(t)C(t-l) (269)

^qf(t)qf(t-l) - -11 My(t)q^(t-.l) - ^ 12 Mp^(t)qf(t-l)

- ^13 i'^f(t-l)q^(t.l) > (270)
- 121

^qm(-t)qin(t-l) " "21 My(t)qj„(t-l) " -22 Mpj„(t)qjn(t

''23%ia(t-l)qin(t

(271)

Add these together and call the si^m M-L2

Step 3: Add the moments Me(t-.l3c(t-l)^.%f(t-l)qf(t-.l)> ^^^

Mn (t-l)q (t-l) together and call the sura M22

Step k: Compute the residual sum of squares for the combined simple

regression:

Si = Mil —-;*

Mop

(272)

This residual sum of squares has N-10-1 degrees of freedom, where N is the

total number of observations (that is, the sum of the numbers for each reg

j. The number of degrees of freedom lost in computing the adjusted

moments is 10, and in computing the combined regression is 1, The

value we suppose •^02-' '^l4^ ^^^ ^2^1- *° have

Ml2

\TGSU!

77 = -^

M22

(273)

• •

step 5: Compute the residual sijms of squares for each of the three

regressions

2

S2 = Mc(t)c(t) (1-% ) +

2

%(t)qf(t) CI-R2 ) +

(27i^)

where Ri^, ^2 , and IR^^ are the squares of the respective coefficients of mul

tiple correlation. S2 has N-13 degrees of freedom, where the 13 is obtained

by counting one for each coefficient and constant term in the three regressions.

Step 6: Compute So = Si - Sg. S3 has N-11-(W-13) = 2 degrees of freedom

Step 7: Compute

S

F'

2

S 2

N-13

F' is distributed as F with 2 and N-13 degrees of freedom. If F' < F,o

2, N-13) "we accept the hypothesis that

^^02 " ''lif = ^^211 - "

if U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE^1958 O