Summary:
Time preference is a trade-off between the present and the future. It is usually described by the rate of time preference, which is the discount rate of the marginal utility of future consumption. The higher the discounted value of future consumption utility, the lower the rate of time preference, the more people tend to consume in the future and the higher the savings. Therefore, time preference is the core factor that determines saving behavior. Some existing studies have analyzed the changes in household saving, investment, and consumption behaviors caused by the fertility policy. However, the preference factors behind these behavioral changes have not been deeply investigated. This paper aims to quantify the impact of the universal two-child policy on the rate of time preference and to provide empirical evidence for predicting the future savings scale and the direction of savings structure adjustment in China. On the one hand, the adjustment of fertility policy can affect the scale of consumption and savings by changing households' future income and expenditure expectations. On the other hand, it can affect the structure of consumption and saving by adjusting the share of dependency expenditure in total expenditure. The first work of this paper is to construct a time preference rate measurement model from the consumer intertemporal decision-making problem, and to estimate the rate of time preference using the two micro-databases of China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) from 2012 to 2018 and China Household Finance Survey (CHFS) from 2013 to 2019. Using the CFPS database, the average values of the RTP at the household level from 2012 to 2020 are 0.0239, 0.0278, 0.0225, 0.0291, and 0.0251 respectively. The time preference rates calculated using the CHFS database for the years 2015 and 2017 are 0.0259 and 0.0256. This can also be understood as the discount rate used by Chinese households in discounting future utility is 2.56 % and 2.58%. The utility of 1 unit in the future is discounted to the current utility of 0.9750(=1/(1+0.0256)) and 0.9748(=1/(1+0.0258)) units, which is close to the 3% commonly used in theoretical modeling. The second work of this paper is to design four sets of experiments to examine the impact of the universal two-child policy on time preference from the perspective of fertility behavior and fertility intention. We identify the impact of the universal two-child policy on time preference using the PSM-DID method and find that the universal two-child policy leads to a decrease in the rate of time preference of Chinese households from 2.56 % to 1.84 %, and the corresponding discount factor increases from 0.9750 to 0.9819. The rate of time preference decreases by 0.72 percentage points, with a decrease of 28.13 %. This result is confirmed by multiple placebo tests and robustness tests. The third work of this paper is to explore the heterogeneity of the impact of the universal two-child policy on the rate of time preference from four perspectives: household vulnerability, household happiness, household health, and expected economic uncertainty. The results show that the reduction effect of the universal two-child policy on the rate of time preference is more significant in households with higher economic vulnerability, higher level of happiness, higher level of health, and lower expected economic uncertainty, indicating that these households have a stronger motivation to save for their children. The fourth work of this paper is to further analyze the impact of the universal two-child policy on household investment income. If the implementation of the universal two-child policy changes the rate of time preference of households, the preference adjustment will eventually affect household investment income and cause a change of the rate of return. Households that are considering having or have already had two children will prefer the future. The implementation of the universal two-child policy has led to a decrease in the share of enjoyable consumption, an increase in the savings rate, and a decrease in the rate of return on investment and the real rate of return for policy-sensitive households. The marginal contributions of this paper are as follows: First, this paper focuses on the psychological variable of time preference and quantitatively analyzes the policy effect of implementing the universal two-child policy. This provides an interpretation with a preference perspective for understanding the change in household behavior caused by changes in fertility policy. Second, this study also provides evidence for understanding why and how preferences change. This paper finds that the psychological variable of time preference is affected by policy factors. This shows that preference is not a parameter set in the theoretical model and that the constant setting should be relaxed to describe reality. Third, this paper measures the rate of time preference parameters at the household level in China using the intertemporal consumption Euler equation, which provides a theoretical modeling reference for the subsequent research on the rate of time preference.
易祯, 徐龙强. 全面二孩政策对家庭“储蓄-消费”决策的影响[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 536(2): 188-206.
Yi Zhen, Xu Longqiang. The Impact of the Universal Two-Child Policy on Time Preference: A Perspective Based on Family Fertility Behavior and Fertility Willingness. Journal of Financial Research, 2025, 536(2): 188-206.
[1]陈学彬、傅东升和葛成杰,2006,《我国居民个人生命周期消费投资行为动态优化模拟研究》,《金融研究》第2期,第21～35页。 [2]葛润和施新政,2023,《全面二孩政策如何影响家庭生育决策》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1392～1407页。 [3]管振,2024,《生育政策调整、人口年龄结构优化与人口素质提升》,《中央财经大学学报》第8期,第102～116页。 [4]金苗、李健、孟涓涓和孙经纬,2021,《有限视野与跨期决策》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1189～1212页。 [5]李彦昭、郭菊娥、李永武和汪寿阳,2023,《时间不一致偏好下风险投资最优投资时机研究》,《系统工程理论与实践》第4期,第1088～1100页。 [6]刘鸿雁和黄匡时,2015,《全国‘单独两孩’政策实施效果研究——基于单独夫妇及其子女信息核查数据的分析》,《中国人口科学》第4期,第23～31页。 [7]汪伟、杨嘉豪、吴坤和徐乐,2020,《二孩政策对家庭二孩生育与消费的影响研究》,《财经研究》,第12期,第79～93页。 [8]王维国、付裕和刘丰,2022,《生育政策、生育意愿与初育年龄》,《经济研究》第9期,第116～136页。 [9]吴贾、林嘉达和韩潇,2020,《父母耐心程度、教育方式与子女人力资本积累》,《经济学动态》第8期,第37～53页。 [10]姚东旻、许艺煊和张鹏远,2019,《灾难经历、时间偏好与家庭储蓄行为》,《世界经济》第1期,第145～169页。 [11]尹志超和张栋浩,2020,《金融普惠、家庭贫困及脆弱性》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期,第153～172页。 [12]俞秀梅、雷晓燕和王敏,2023,《预期寿命对中国家户储蓄和健康投资行为的影响》,《经济科学》第6期,第164～182页。 [13]袁扬舟,2021,《生育政策与家庭微观决策及宏观经济结构》,《经济研究》第4期,第160～179页。 [14]章元和刘茜楠,2021,《“活在当下”还是“未雨绸缪”？——地震对中国城镇家庭储蓄和消费习惯的长期影响》,《金融研究》第8期,第80～99页。 [15]章元和王驹飞,2019,《预期寿命延长与中国城镇居民的高储蓄率——来自地级市城镇家庭的证据》,《中国人口科学》第2期,第16～26页。 [16]周俊山和尹银,2011,《中国计划生育政策对居民储蓄率的影响》,《金融研究》第10期,第61～73页。 [17]朱超和易祯,2021,《活在当下还是着眼未来:中国跨期替代弹性的估计与决定》,《世界经济》第11期,第194～220页。 [18]Ascari, G., L.M.Magnusson and S.Mavroeidis, 2021, “Empirical Evidence on the Euler Equation for Consumption in the US”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 117, pp.129～152. [19]Attanasio, O.P.and H.Low, 2004, “Estimating Euler Equations”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 7(2), pp.406～435. [20]Bell, E.R., L.Glover and T.Alexander, 2014, “An Exploration of Pregnant Teenagers' Views of the Future and Their Decisions to Continue or Terminate Their Pregnancy: Implications for Nursing Care”, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23, pp.2503～2514. [21]Campisi, J., P.Kapahi, G.J.Lithgow, M.Simon, J.C.Newman and E.Verdin, 2019, “From Diseoveries in Ageing Research to Therapeutics for Healthy Ageing”, Nature, 571, pp.183～192. [22]Choi, Y.and J.Han, 2018, “Time Preference and Savings Behaviour”, Applied Economics Letters, 25(14), pp.994～997. [23]Dohmen, T., H.Lehmann and N.Pignatti, 2016, “Time-Varying Individual Risk Attitudes over the Great Recession: A Comparison of Germany and Ukraine”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(1), pp.182～200. [24]Epper, T., E.Fehr, H.Fehr-Duda, C.T.Kreiner, D.D.Lassen, S.Leth-Petersen and G.N.Rasmussen, 2020, “Time Discounting and Wealth Inequality”, American Economic Review, 110(4), pp.1177～1205. [25]Finke, M.S.and S.J.Huston, 2013, “Time Preference and the Importance of Saving for Retirement”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 89, pp.23～34. [26]Fisher, I., 1907, “The Rate of Interest”, New York, Macmillan. [27]Guiso, L., P.Sapienza and L.Zingales, 2018, “Time Varying Risk Aversion”, Journal of Financial Economics, 128(3), pp.403～421. [28]Hall,R.E..1978.“Stochastic Implications of the Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence”,Journal of Political Economy,86(6),pp.971～987. [29]Hall, R.E., 1988, “Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption”, Journal of Political Economy, 96(2), pp.339～357. [30]Hansen, L.P.and K.J.Singleton, 1982, “Generalized Instrumental Variables Estimation of Nonlinear Rational Expectations Models”, Econometrica, 50(5), pp.1269～1286. [31]Hong, E.and S.D.Hanna, 2014, “Financial Planning Horizon: A Measure of Time Preference or a Situational Factor？”, Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 25(2), pp.184～196. [32]Jin, Z., S.Pan and Z.Zheng, 2021, “The Unintended Consequences of Relaxing Birth Quotas: Theory and Evidence”, Available at SSRN 382686. [33]Jung, D., T.Bharati and S.Chin, 2021, “Does Education Affect Time Preference？ Evidence from Indonesia”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 69(4), pp.1451～1499. [34]Kureishi, W., H.Paule-Paludkiewicz, H.Tsujiyama and M.Wakabayashi, 2021, “Time Preferences over the Life Cycle and Household Saving Puzzles”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 124, pp.123～139. [35]Lawrance, E.C., 1991, “Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference: Evidence from Panel Data”, Journal of Political Economy, 99(1), pp.54～77. [36]Nesticò, A.and G.Maselli, 2020, “A Protocol for the Estimate of the Social Rate of Time Preference: The Case Studies of Italy and the USA”, Journal of Economic Studies, 47(3), pp.527～545. [37]Yang, Y.and Q.Wang, 2018, “Insurance Inclusion, Time Preference and Stock Investment of the Chinese Households”, The Singapore Economic Review, 63(1), pp.27～44. [38]Yogo, M., 2004, “Estimating the Elasticity of Intertemporal Substitution When Instruments are Weak”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(3), pp.797～810.
