消費理論和消費者主觀幸福評估【外文翻譯】

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目：Consumption theories and consumers' assessments of subjective well-being.</p><p>　　出 處：Journal of Consumer Affairs; Winter92, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p243, 19

2、p, 3 Charts </p><p>　　作 者： MacDonald, Maurice Douthitt, Robin A.</p><p><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p><b>　　ABSTRACT

3、</b></p><p>　　Presents a paper which examines the relationship between psychological well-being and objective, economic well-being as measured using three different economic theories of consumption beh

4、avior. Life cycle income hypothesis; Relative income hypothesis; Resource deficit hypothesis; Methods and discussion.</p><p>　　I. Introduction</p><p>　　The purpose of this research is to examine

5、 the relationship between psychological well-being and objective, economic well-being as measured using three different economic theories of consumption behavior. The theories examined are the life cycle income hypothesi

6、s, the relative income hypothesis, and a resource deficit hypothesis. The results from analyses of the Wisconsin Basic Needs Study data demonstrate the importance of careful economic variable construction and support the

7、 economic presumpt</p><p>　　This paper examines the relationships between subjective assessments of well-being and objective economic variables to test and compare three different economic theories of consum

8、ption behavior: Modigliani's life cycle income hypothesis (1986); Duesenberry's relative income hypothesis (1949); and a resource deficit hypothesis attributed to Kyrk (1953). Multivariate analyses were designed

9、to isolate and compare the independent effects on subjective well-being of objective economic measures repres</p><p>　　The following quotes provide an introduction to the main ideas for three different model

10、s of the relationship of changes in consumer resources to perceptions of well-being. </p><p>　　The hypothesis of utility maximization (and perfect markets) has, all by itself, one very powerful implication-t

11、he resources that a representative consumer allocates at any age ... will depend only on his life resources ... and not at all on income accruing currently (Modigliani 1986, 299). </p><p>　　From the viewpoin

12、t of preference theory or marginal utility theory, human desires are desires for specific goods; but nothing is said about how these desires arise or how they are changed. That, however, is the essence of the consumption

13、 problem when preferences are interdependent (Duesenberry 1949, 19). </p><p>　　Everyone probably has, more or less consciously formulated, an ideal standard of living, a level toward which he moves as income

14、 and other opportunities permit; he has also . . . a standard that he insists upon maintaining. To attain the first would be a highly desirable state of economic well-being, to attain the second is essential, and to fall

15、 below it is intolerable (Kyrk 1953, 374). </p><p>　　Each of these statements posits how specific changes in resources and/or preferences affect well-being. Yet all have been ignored in the recent expansion

16、of research on the consumer life cycle. Attempts to understand variation in family and consumer well-being over the life cycle have emphasized the specification of variables to capture the relevant demographic characteri

17、stics of each stage in the life cycle (Murphy and Staples 1979; Stampfl 1978). A growing literature on subjective assessments </p><p>　　Although variation in consumption needs and resources to meet them has

18、been considered extensively, no systematic empirical effort has been made to relate subjective well-being assessments to economic theories about life cycle consumption behavior. This conclusion is supported by the fact t

19、hat the literature on life satisfaction has relied on a single, short term measure of economic resources, current income, in conjunction with demographic variables to capture other influences of stage in the l</p>

20、<p>　　The research presented here is part of a larger project devoted to improving the specification and investigation of relationships among a more comprehensive array of objective economic variables and subjectiv

21、e well-being indicators than heretofore. Prior work on subjective well-being has taken as implicit that current income translates directly into resources for consumption. There has been very little recognition of theorie

22、s acknowledging the divergence between consumption and income that resul</p><p>　　While a positive relationship between current income and psychological well-being has been documented extensively, there is a

23、lso evidence of important exceptions. Campbell (1976) reviewed five national surveys, which all revealed that the proportion of "very happy" people increases with income level. However, a large minority of the

24、affluent describe themselves as less than very happy and a substantial minority of the least affluent claim they are very happy. Thus accurately evaluating the econo</p><p>　　The next section relies on the i

25、nsights of Modigliani, Duesenberry, and Kyrk to develop objective economic measures for life cycle income, relative income, and of deficits in resources to meet individual consumption aspirations, respectively. After exp

26、laining the nature of the data set, separate regression models are specified consistent with each of the theoretical economic well-being hypotheses. Then the estimated regression results are used to assess the relative e

27、xplanatory power of each mea</p><p>　　THEORIES OF ECONOMIC WELL-BEING</p><p>　　According to Duesenberry's theory of consumer behavior, "interdependent preferences" mean that the co

28、nsumer's satisfaction depends on the level of own consumption, as perceived relative to others'. Specifically, "when an individual makes an unfavorable comparison of his living standard . . . the individual

29、is dissatisfied with his position" (1949,32). Furthermore, the interdependence is connected to the motivation for saving because the dissatisfaction "arises from the rejection of impulses to s</p><p&

30、gt;　　One interpretation of the RIH that relates present to future consumption is as follows. Those consumers who are unable to "keep up with the Jones's" experience dissatisfaction as pressures mount to inc

31、rease current consumption above the level which is consistent with their desired level of future consumption. Empirically, this hypothesis can be examined by relating current household expenditures to those of other hous

32、eholds during the same period, holding income constant. Thus, relying on curren</p><p>　　Modigliani's LIH framework concerns optimal savings behavior that depends on and determines differences between cu

33、rrent income and expected future income. In its simplest "stripped down" form, the LIH posits life cycle paths for consumption, saving, and wealth that depend on the length of the work life, retirement age, and

34、 expected age at death, as well as the age profile of earnings (Modigliani 1986). Because utility maximization requires consumption smoothing over time, the path of wealth hold</p><p>　　Adult-Equivalent Cons

35、umption Needs</p><p>　　In addition to measures of economic well-being and life cycle stage effects, it was necessary to control for family needs in testing the relationship between the life cycle income hypo

36、thesis and life satisfaction. In previous studies of well-being, often such measures were either omitted or a gross indicator like family size was used. For this study, household equivalence scales were constructed (HH E

37、QUIVALENCE) to control for such effects. </p><p>　　The particular household equivalence measure used in this analysis was developed by Buse and Salathe (1978) and modified by Tedford, Capps, and Havlicek (TC

38、H) (1986). The primary advantage of the Buse and Salathe equivalence scale calculation is that the scale is expressed as a continuous rather than discrete function of age. TCH's contribution involved respecification

39、of the scaling functions in a manner consistent with the human development literature by augmenting stages first identified by L</p><p>　　The household equivalence measure was not included as a control in ei

40、ther the RIH or RDH models. It was not included in the RIH model because its construction is based on a life cycle theory and thus is highly correlated with the life cycle stage indicator variables. Life cycle variables

41、in the RIH model capture both life cycle and need effects. In the resource deficit model, no control for family needs was required, as respondents implicitly make such assessments in expressing what level of inc</p>

42、;<p>　　All three models were estimated using a weighted least squares regression analysis. Results are presented in Table 3. All model specifications explained a significant amount of variance (about 12 to 15 perc

43、ent) in the dependent variable, overall life satisfaction. The explained variance of a simple model including only current income and family size was about seven percent (Douthitt, MacDonald, and Mullis 1991). </p>

44、<p><b>　　SUMMARY</b></p><p>　　Generally, all three models of economic well-being perform favorably in explaining consumer utility or psychological well-being. The relative income hypothesi

45、s model is the simplest and most powerful of the three. The theoretical specification of the relative income model addresses the question of whether keeping up with the Jones's really contributes to or detracts from

46、one's overall life satisfaction. Results indicate that deviation from average peer expenditure patterns is important, but that</p><p>　　Two additional important conclusions from this work can be drawn. F

47、irst, a careful specification of economic variables in models explaining family life satisfaction has important payoffs in terms of explained variance. However, which economic theory of utility maximization is used may n

48、ot be as critical. The more complexly specified life cycle income hypothesis model does not perform any better than the other models with variables that are much easier to derive (but for Duesenberry's hypothesis <

49、;/p><p>　　譯 文：消費理論和消費者主觀幸福評估</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　本文探討心理健康和目標(biāo)的關(guān)系以及用經(jīng)濟福祉來作為衡量三個不同的消費行為的經(jīng)濟理論。包括生命周期收入假說，相對收入假說，資源赤字假說方法和研究。 </p><p><b>　　引言</b&

50、gt;</p><p>　　這項研究是研究心理健康和目標(biāo)之間的關(guān)系，經(jīng)濟福祉衡量三個不同的消費行為的經(jīng)濟理論。理論研究的是生命周期的收入假設(shè)，相對收入假設(shè)，假設(shè)資源不足。從威斯康星基本數(shù)據(jù)的分析結(jié)果表明，經(jīng)濟變量必須認(rèn)真地鞏固和支持經(jīng)濟推定，收入正在積極和生活滿意有關(guān)。這也容易地說明與相對收入假設(shè)模式最大的差異和優(yōu)勢。 </p><p>　　這份文件審查主觀的評價的福祉和客觀的經(jīng)濟變量測試

51、之間的關(guān)系和比較三種不同消費行為的經(jīng)濟理論:莫生命周期的收入假設(shè)(1986)；杜森伯里的相對收入假設(shè)(1949)；和一個資源赤字假設(shè)歸咎于基爾克(1953)?？陀^經(jīng)濟措施代表這三個假設(shè)旨在分析孤立和比較獨立影響主觀幸福。 </p><p>　　以下介紹的三種不同型號消費觀念的主要內(nèi)容及關(guān)系的變化 ：</p><p>　　假設(shè)效用最大化(和完善市場)，所有的影響消費者的資源，不是消費者的任何

52、年齡，而只是取決于他的生活資源，不是目前的利息收入(莫1986,299)。 </p><p>　　從偏好理論或邊際效用理論的觀點看，人類的欲望是特定商品的欲望，但沒有這些欲望是如何產(chǎn)生或說它們是如何改變的理論，然而，這是消費問題，優(yōu)惠是相互依存(杜森伯里1949,19)。</p><p>　　每個人都有可能不自覺地制定一個理想的生活水平，這一水平，對于他提出的收入和其他機會具有可能性；他對

53、于這個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，堅持維護。為了實現(xiàn)第二種經(jīng)濟福祉，實現(xiàn)第一個理想是必不可少的，并且低于第一個是不能容忍(基爾克1953,374)。 </p><p>　　每一個發(fā)言斷定資源如何具體變化影響偏好福祉。然而，所有最近擴大研究的消費生命周期被忽視了。試圖了解不同的家庭和消費者福利的生命周期強調(diào)規(guī)格的變量來捕捉有關(guān)人口的特點，在每個階段的生命周期(墨菲和糧食作物1979;stampfl1978)。越來越多的主觀評價文學(xué)的福祉

54、是出于關(guān)心而來，特別是滿意減少階段(坎貝爾、Converse,和羅杰斯1976)。強調(diào)生命周期階段也是分析影響不斷變化的經(jīng)濟和人口的經(jīng)濟福利的一個關(guān)鍵變量(levy1987)。 </p><p>　　不同的消費需求和資源，滿足他們沒有系統(tǒng)化經(jīng)驗的不足，主觀幸福評估經(jīng)濟理論已被廣泛認(rèn)為對生命周期消費行為作出了努力。這一結(jié)論支持的是在生活滿意，依靠單一、短期的經(jīng)濟資源，捕捉目前其他影響收入與人口變量的階段，在生命中(

55、例如,阿拉特1977；安德魯斯1980；多倫溫德1973；費爾南德斯和庫利克1981；霍爾1976；奧肯1984)。這里提出的研究是一個較大的項目，改善專門的規(guī)格和調(diào)查之間的關(guān)系，客觀經(jīng)濟變量和主觀幸福指標(biāo)比以往任何時候更周全。以前的工作的主觀幸福所采取的暗示，當(dāng)前的收入直接翻譯為資源消費。 有了很少承認(rèn)理論承認(rèn)分歧的消費和收入，結(jié)果需要節(jié)省，從未來借入的收入能力或壓力,以滿足潛在或?qū)嶋H增加的消費需求。 但是儲蓄和消費功能的經(jīng)濟理論和經(jīng)

56、驗研究一再表示，最大限度地利用消費者所有的收入(莫和布倫伯格1954)，目前的消費和收入可能是一個貧窮指標(biāo)(弗里德曼1957)。其他部門的金融安全無疑有助于某種意義上的福祉。例如個人年收入30000元，很有可能與其他金融資源偏離方面。一些低或消極凈值(即資產(chǎn)減負(fù)債)，而有較高凈值，一些應(yīng)急資產(chǎn)相對不足。另一方面，很多人現(xiàn)有收入對未來收入可能出</p><p>　　雖然目前收入和心理健康存在積極的關(guān)系已經(jīng)被廣泛證明

57、，但也有例外?？藏悹?1976)審查了五個國家調(diào)查顯示，大部分的人“非常高興”人民收入水平增加。 但是，少數(shù)人的描述自己的富裕不到十分高興和大量少數(shù)最不富裕聲稱他們非常高興。因此，準(zhǔn)確地評估經(jīng)濟資源的關(guān)系，心理健康似乎需要以適當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)濟理論的額外客觀經(jīng)濟措施,。 </p><p>　　下一條依靠杜森伯里和基爾克發(fā)展客觀經(jīng)濟措施的生命周期收入，相對收入和資源的赤字的見解，來滿足個人消費愿望。不同的回歸模式符合規(guī)定的每

58、一個理論性的經(jīng)濟福利假設(shè)。當(dāng)時估計回歸結(jié)果是用來衡量相對解釋能力的，每一項措施和獲得的有關(guān)結(jié)論對受訪者主觀的整體福利在生命周期的影響為目前的研究提供解釋。 </p><p><b>　　經(jīng)濟福祉理論</b></p><p>　　根據(jù)杜森伯里的消費行為理論“相互依存優(yōu)惠”意味著消費者認(rèn)為相對其他人，滿意程度取決于自己的消費，具體來說“當(dāng)個人比較不利時，他的個人的立場不滿

59、意他的生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”(1949,32)。此外，連帶著相互依存的儲蓄動機的不滿，因為“來自拒絕沖動消費”(1949,32)。因此，那些能夠消耗在以上的水平應(yīng)同行更滿意比那些不能，但他們也能夠節(jié)省足以滿足這一立場。關(guān)于這一重要警告儲蓄說明消費相對比較是與當(dāng)前和未來的收入水平。此外，它明確了相對收入假設(shè)(赫)和莫的生命周期理論的儲蓄(力)密切有關(guān)，滿意取決于目前和預(yù)期收入。</p><p>　　一種解釋是赫本未來消費，這些

60、消費者無法跟上瓊斯的經(jīng)驗不足,形成一種壓力加在目前的消費水平之上，這是符合其預(yù)期未來消費水平。根據(jù)經(jīng)驗，這一假設(shè)可由現(xiàn)有家庭支出有關(guān)的其他家庭在同一時期的收入。因此，依靠現(xiàn)有的數(shù)據(jù)來看,可以測試的假設(shè)是目前的資源是對未來滿意的決定因素。雖然這種測試需要完整的支出數(shù)據(jù)，它可避免眾所周知的儲蓄獲得可靠數(shù)據(jù)的困難問題。 </p><p>　　莫利最佳儲蓄行為，取決于當(dāng)前的收入差異和預(yù)期未來收入。在簡單的一個“剝削”的形

61、式下斷定的生命周期路徑消費、儲蓄、財富,取決于工作生活的長度，退休的年齡，預(yù)期死亡年齡，以及年齡收入(莫1986)。因為最大限度利用消費環(huán)節(jié)需要的路徑,財富具有丘形。在生命周期收入階段,家庭節(jié)省以積累財富,用以退休生活。因此，目前的消費取決于各年齡層的整個收入。即使沒有過渡收入差異，目前收入水平可能大不相同，預(yù)計在隨后的時間是因為一個特別的年齡收入。因此，研究莫的規(guī)格,公式包括目前和預(yù)期收入變量。此外，凈值（annuitized）進入模

62、式，作為一個單獨變量預(yù)測到影響集團現(xiàn)有的財富?；鶢柨?1953)建議的差距成為一個不甚滿意的資源愿望水平和實際經(jīng)驗。她認(rèn)為,個人期望他們理想的生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，根據(jù)個人的經(jīng)驗和目標(biāo)方向，是當(dāng)前的收入和預(yù)期收入水平(1953)。雖然收入目標(biāo)可能包括觀察同事的消費(杜森伯里也承認(rèn)生活水平是一個美國目標(biāo))基爾克的想法是消費者最終確定并尋求解決自己的收入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而不是其他人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。因此，基爾克的假設(shè)是獨特的。 </p><p>&

63、lt;b>　　成人消費需求</b></p><p>　　此外，經(jīng)濟福利和生命周期階段影響措施，在測試之間有必要對家庭需要控制生命周期收入假說和生活滿意度的關(guān)系。在之前的幸福研究，這些措施往往要么省略或類似家庭規(guī)模的總指標(biāo)。這項研究，控制家庭建造同等規(guī)模(HH等同)這種影響。 </p><p>　　特別是家庭的措施等同于本分析是由布斯和salathe(1978)和經(jīng)tedf

64、ord,卡普斯和克(捷克斯洛伐克)(1986)。主要利用布斯和salathe同等規(guī)模計算,而不是獨有的職責(zé)。捷克斯洛伐克的貢獻respecification涉及的縮放功能，以符合人類發(fā)展文學(xué)擴大確定的第一階段萊文森等人(1978)。像布斯和salathe、捷克斯洛伐克包含成人職能的立方花鍵功能的計算規(guī)模。在16筆變量是加權(quán)計算的家庭功能的年齡和性別特征和倒退的每月總支出的家庭獲得同等措施。</p><p>　　家

65、庭等同措施不包括作為一個控制在赫或快速模式。這不包括在赫模式，是因為它的建設(shè)是基于一個生命周期理論，是生命周期的指標(biāo)密切相關(guān)的階段變數(shù)。生命周期的變數(shù)捕捉生命周期的影響和需要。在資源不足模式，控制家庭需要是必須的，受訪者含蓄地作出評價，表示什么樣的收入水平使他們感到可怕。 </p><p>　　所有三種模式使用一個加權(quán)最小平方回歸分析，結(jié)果表明所有示范規(guī)格解釋了大量的差額(約12至15%)的變量,生活整體滿意。一

66、個簡單的模式只包括當(dāng)前的收入和家庭規(guī)模約為0%(douthitt,麥克唐納,和穆利斯1991)。</p><p><b>　　總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　一般來說，經(jīng)濟福祉的三種模式中相對收入假說模型是最簡單，最強大的對消費者的效用或心理福祉進行解釋。該模型的理論規(guī)范的相對收入是否緊跟瓊斯，真正有助于從一個人的整體生活滿意度解釋問題。結(jié)果表明，從重要的平均開支模

67、式的偏差來看，支出低于平均水平，保持收入不變，生活滿意度提高了。雖然這似乎違反常理，僅側(cè)重洞察力。此外，因為儲蓄行為在許多時期發(fā)生了變化，主觀福祉不僅是目前的經(jīng)濟狀況，還考慮長遠的以及資源的功能為相對收入假說的成功提供了有力的證據(jù)。 這項工作的兩個附加的可以得出的重要結(jié)論是：首先，家庭生活滿意度模型解釋經(jīng)濟變數(shù)以及回報，然而，效用最大化的經(jīng)濟理論不能作為關(guān)鍵。在指定的生命周期的復(fù)雜化程度增加時，收入假說模型比變量更容易獲得（但D