During Michaelmas Term, OxTalks will be moving to a new platform (full details are available on the Staff Gateway).
For now, continue using the current page and event submission process (freeze period dates to be advised).
If you have any questions, please contact halo@digital.ox.ac.uk
The near-rationality hypothesis (Akerlof and Yellen, 1985) holds that the presence of even very small costs of optimization may lead many households to act irrationally. We embed this idea in a standard model of consumption-savings decisions: households pursue simple quick fix consumption policies unless they pay a cost to re-optimize. We design a novel survey to test this theory by eliciting hypothetical consumption responses to a large number of unanticipated income shocks, allowing us to estimate within-subject consumption policies. Consistent with the theory, 68% of households follow one of four simple quick-fix consumption policies that either fully consume or fully save out of small negative and positive shocks before abruptly switching to similar consumption policies for large shocks. Households’ quick-fixing types are essentially unpredictable given rich demographic and economic information but nevertheless explain 49% of the variance in MPCs across households. Quantitatively, an incomplete-markets model calibrated to our survey findings generates almost twice as much size-dependence in the aggregate consumption response to government transfer shocks as the nested rational model. This large difference in behavior arises while households experience consumption-equivalent welfare costs of irrationality of at most $65 per quarter.