COLLECTIVE MODELS OF HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR: MAIN APPROACHES TO FORMATION AND AREAS OF USE

Abstract

The paper summarizes the international experience of modelling the decision-making process of households and the main areas of use of collective models of household consumption behavior. Unitary and non-unitary methodological approaches to the study of household consumption behavior are studied. According to the traditional, unitary, approach of microeconomic theory, households are considered as single decision-making units, as “consumers” in the usual sense, which are characterized by a single utility function that is maximized under certain budget constraints. This approach does not assume that household members can act and make decisions independently, in particular regarding the consumption of goods and services, or significantly influence such decisions of other household members; the peculiarities of the distribution of resources between household members are not taken into account. Against the background of the discussion about the shortcomings of the unitary model, scientists have proposed a non-unitary approach, which takes into account that household members may have their own preferences that differ from each other, and that decision-making processes in households are complex phenomena that deserve special attention. In Ukraine, a non-unitary approach in modelling the socio-economic behavior of households has not become widely used, thus to assess the relevance and possibility of its application on Ukrainian data, it is relevant to study international theoretical and empirical researches into the economic behavior of households in consuming goods and services, producing and consuming their own products, forming savings, making investments, etc., based on a collective approach. The main purpose of the article is to study the international experience of developing and using collective models of household consumption behavior and to determine the most relevant areas of their application. The theoretical basis of the study is the general methods of scientific inquiry, such as systematization and theoretical generalization, scientific abstraction, comparison, argumentation, analysis and synthesis, etc. The most relevant areas of application of collective models of household consumption behavior are the study of such issues as labour supply, consumption and savings, household production and distribution of goods among its members, the level of poverty, etc.

REFERENCES / ЛІТЕРАТУРА

1. Mattila-Wiro, P. (1999). Economics Theories of the Household: A Critical Review. WIDER Working Paper Series, WP-1999-159. World Institute for Development Eco nomic Research (UNU-WIDER). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.295484

2. Chiappori, P.-A. (1988). Rational Household Labor Supply. Econometrica, 56 (1), 63—90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911842

3. Browning, M., Bourguignon, F., Chiappori, P.-A., & Lechene, V. (1994). Income and Outcomes: A Structural Model of Intrahousehold Allocation. The Journal of Political Economy, 102 (6), 1067—1096. https://doi.org/10.1086/261964

4. Kooreman, P., & Wunderink, S. (1997). The Economics of Household Behavior. Macmillan Press LTD, London.

5. Donni, O., & Chiappori, P. A. (2011). Nonunitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature. In: Molina, J. (eds). Household Economic Behaviors. International Series on Consumer Science, 1—40. Springer. New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9431-8_1

6. Sarioglo, V., & Korotkova, D. (2023). Models of Household Consumer Behavior: Evolution from Unitary to Collective. Demography and Social Economy, 3 (53), 79—96. https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2023.03.079

[Саріогло, В., & Короткова, Д. (2023). Моделі споживчої поведінки домогосподарств: еволюція від унітарних до колективних. Демографія та соціальна економіка, 3 (53), 79—96].

7. Chiuri, M. C. (2000). Individual decisions and household demand for consumption and leisure. Research in Economics, 54 (3), 277—324. https://doi.org/10.1006/reec.2000.0230

8. Boone, J., der Wiel, K.v., & Soest, A.v. et al. (2014). Kinky choices, dictators and split might: a non-cooperative model for household consumption and labor supply. IZA J Labor Econ, 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-8997-3-11

9. Phipps, S. A., & Burton, P. S. (1998). What’s Mine is Yours? The Influence of Male and Female Incomes on Patterns of Household Expenditure. Economica, 65 (260), 599—613. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00148

10. Lundberg, S. J., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. J. (1997). Do Husbands and Wives Pool Their Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit. The Journal of Human Resources, 32 (3), 463—480. https://doi.org/10.2307/146179

11. Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J., & Alderman, H. (eds). (1997). Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/127320/filename/127531.pdf

12. Kooreman, P., & Kapteyn, A. J. (1990). On the empirical implementation of some game theoretic models of household labor supply. Journal of Human Resources, 25 (4), 584—598. https://doi.org/10.2307/145668

13. Browning, M, Chiappori, P.-A. & Weiss, Y. (2014). Economics of the Family. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139015882

14. Chiappori, P.-A., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2002). Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation, and Household Labor Supply. Journal of Political Economy, 110 (1), 37—72. https://doi.org/10.1086/324385

15. Molina, J. A., Giménez-Nadal, J. I., & Velilla, J. (2018). Intra-household Wealth and Welfare Inequality in the US: Estimations from a Collective Model of Labor Supply. IZA Discussion Papers, 11707. Institute of Labor Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3234230

16. Bloemen, H. G. (2019). Collective Labor Supply, Taxes, and Intrahousehold Allocation: An Empirical Approach. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37 (3), 471—483. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2017.1379407

17. Apps, R., & Rees, R. (1996). Labour Supply, Household Production and Intra-family Welfare Distribution. Journal of Public Economics, 60, 199—219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(95)01524-8

18. Apps, P., & Rees, R. (2002). Household Production, Full Consumption and Costs of Children. Labour Economics, 8 (6), 621—648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(01)00047-1

19. Bargain, O., Donni, O., & Gbakou, M. (2010). The Measurement of Child Costs: Evidence from Ireland. IZA Discussion Papers, 4672. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1530676

20. Rapoport, B., Sofer, C., & Solaz, A. (2011). Household Production in a Collective Model: Some New Results. Journal of Population Economics, 24, 23—45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-010-0308-x

21. Couprie, H., & Ferrant, G. (2015). Welfare Comparisons, Economies of Scale and Equivalence Scale in Time Use. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 117/118, 185—210. https://doi.org/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.117-118.185

22. Van Klaveren, C., & Ghysels, J. (2012). Collective Labor Supply and Child Care Expenditures: Theory and Application. Journal of Labor Research, 33, 196—224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-011-9127-4

23. Browning, M., & Bonke, J. (2009). The Allocation of Expenditures within the Household: A New Survey. Fiscal Studies, 30, 461—481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2009.00104.x

24. Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A., & Lewbel, A. (2013). Estimating Consumption Economies of Scale, Adult Equivalence Scales, and Household Bargaining Power. The Review of Economic Studies, 80 (4), 1267—1303. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt019