Search

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of a consumer confidence shock on GDP and different types of consumer spending during a slack state as well as a non-slack state of an economy. Design/methodology/approach: The authors use the US quarterly data from 1960Q1 to 2014Q4 and apply Jorda's (2005) local projection method to compute the impulse responses of macroeconomic variables to a consumer confidence shock. The local projection method allows us to include non-linearities in the response function. Findings: In general, the response of output, following a consumer confidence shock, is similar in slack and non-slack states and indicate that an unfavorable confidence shock is contractionary. However, the intensity and duration of impact of a confidence shock on different components of spending are state dependent. Overall, a negative confidence shock appears to have a stronger impact on non-slack time than on a slack time. Practical implications: Policy makers should be careful about undertaking a policy action that may affect consumer confidence adversely, particularly during an economic good time. An adverse confidence shock can trigger a downfall in a well-functioning economy and the dampening effect may last for several quarters before the economy rebounds. Originality/value: US economy is subject to fluctuations; however, the literature on the impact of confidence shock in different economic states is limited. The incremental contribution of this paper is that it investigates how the consumers respond to the confidence shock in a state-dependent model. Furthermore, the authors use a more robust and alternative estimation method that tackles any non-linear problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses micro-level data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) to study consumers' spending responses to the child tax credit. The article provides one test of the permanent-income hypothesis (PIH) that infers that temporary changes in income have little effect on consumer spending, at the initiation of the child tax credit in 1997, and a second PIH test when the credit was increased in 2003. The evidence supports the PIH in both 1997 and 2003, even using three different proxies for liquidity-constrained households. Separate from any PIH implications, our findings suggest the child tax credit did not provide a short-term consumption stimulus in either of the time periods studied. Our results therefore cast some doubt on whether this type of tax credit should be considered sound fiscal policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]