Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison Utility in a Growth Model

  • Published:
Journal of Economic Growth Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the dynamics of two endogenous-growth modelsin which agents have comparison utility. In the inward-lookingeconomy, individuals care about how their current consumptioncompares with their own past consumption. In the outward-lookingeconomy, they care about how their own consumption compares withother people‘s consumption. In response to a negative shock tocapital, saving and growth will temporarily fall in both of themodels that we consider but will remain constant in a model withstandard preferences. The decline will be smaller in the outward-than in the inward-looking case, but utility will be lower inthe former case because of a negative externality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel, A. (1990). “Asset Prices Under Habit Formation and Catching Up with the Joneses,” American Economic Review40(2), 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, S. R., J. Formby, W. J. Smith, and B. Zheng. (1997). “An Experimental Examination of Pareto Efficiency, Envy, Malice and the Sentiment for Equality,” Working Paper 9703, University of Colorado–Denver, Center for Research on Economic and Social Policy.

  • Campbell, J.Y., and J. H. Cochrane. (1995). “By Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior,” NBER Working Paper No. 4995.

  • Carroll, C., J. R. Overland, and D. Weil. (1997). “Saving and Growth with Habit Formation,” Mimeo, Brown University.

  • Carroll, C. D., and D. N. Weil. (1994). “Saving and Growth: A Reinterpretation,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy40, 133–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, G. M. (1990). “Habit Formation: A Resolution of the Equity Premium Puzzle,” Journal of Political Economy98, 519–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. S., and C. H. Paxson. (1992). “Saving, Growth, and Aging in Taiwan. In D. A. Wise (ed.), Studies in the Economics of Aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynan, K. E. (1993). “Habit Formation in Consumer Preferences: Evidence from Panel Data,” Economic Activity Working Paper Number 143, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

  • Frank, R. H. (1985). On Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gali, J. (1994). “Keeping Up with the Joneses: Consumption Externalities, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Prices,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking26(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapteyn, A., T. J. Wansbeek, and J. Buyze. (1980). “The Dynamics of Preference Formation,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization1, 123–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, G., and N. Sicherman. (1991). “Do Workers Prefer Increasing Wage Profiles?,” Journal of Labor Economics9(1), 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E. J. (1988). “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics22(1), 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overland, J. R. (1997). “Optimal Saving with Stochastic Income and Habit Formation,” Working Paper 9704, University of Colorado–Denver, Center for Research on Economic and Social Policy.

  • Parente, S. L., and E. C. Prescott. (1994). “Barriers to Technology Adoption and Development,” Journal of Political Economy102(2), 298–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A. C. (1903). “Some Remarks on Utility,” Economic Journal, 58–68.

  • Pollack, R. A. (1978). “Endogenous Tastes in Demand and Welfare Analysis,” American Economic Review68, 374–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo, S. T. (1991). “Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy99(3), 500–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, Jr., H., and G. Heal. (1973). “Optimal Growth with Intertemporally Dependent Preferences,” Review of Economic Studies40, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1983). “Poor, Relatively Speaking,” Oxford Economic Papers35, 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” In E. Cannan (ed.), The Wealth of Nations: The Cannan Edition. New York: Modern Library, 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Stadt, H., A. Kapteyn, and S. van de Geer. (1985). “The Impact of Changes in Income and Family Composition on Subjective Well-Being,” Review of Economics and Statistics67(2), 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carroll, C.D., Overland, J. & Weil, D.N. Comparison Utility in a Growth Model. Journal of Economic Growth 2, 339–367 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009740920294

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009740920294

Navigation