2022National Bureau of Economic ResearchRequires access

Household Spending Responses to the Economic Impact Payments of 2020: Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey

Jonathan A. Parker, Jake Schild, Laura Erhard, David Johnson

Open publisher page 50 citations

Abstract

Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey and variation in amount, receipt, and timing of receipt of Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) authorized by the CARES Act, this paper estimates that people spent less of their EIPs in the few months following arrival than in similar previous policy episodes and than estimated by existing studies using other types of data. Accounting for volatility during the pandemic and comparing the consumer spending behavior of broadly similar households, people spent roughly 10 percent (standard error 3.4) of their EIPs on non-durable goods and services in the three months of arrival, with little evidence of additional spending in the subsequent three months or on durable goods. People who report mostly spending their EIPs spent 14.3% (3.7) of their EIPs compared to 5.9% (8.3) and -1.6% (5.0) for those who report mostly paying off debt and saving respectively. People with low liquid wealth and people receiving their EIPs on debit cards spent at higher rates: 21.7% (6.4) and 36.8% (24.6) respectively, with economically larger estimates for total spending.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey and variation in amount, receipt, and timing of receipt of Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) authorized by the CARES Act, this paper estimates that people spent less of their EIPs in the few months following arrival than in similar previous policy episodes and than estimated by existing studies using other types of data. Accounting for volatility during the pandemic and comparing the consumer spending behavior of broadly similar households, people spent roughly 10 percent (standard error 3.4) of their EIPs on non-durable goods and services in the three months of arrival, with little evidence of additional spending in the subsequent three months or on durable goods. People who report mostly spending their EIPs spent 14.3% (3.7) of their EIPs compared to 5.9% (8.3) and -1.6% (5.0) for those who report mostly paying off debt and saving respectively. People with low liquid wealth and people receiving their EIPs on debit cards spent at higher rates: 21.7% (6.4) and 36.8% (24.6) respectively, with economically larger estimates for total spending.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 50 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey and variation in amount, receipt, and timing of receipt of Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) authorized by the CARES Act, this paper estimates that people spent less of their EIPs in the few months following arrival than in similar previous policy episodes and than estimated by existing studies using other types of data. Accounting for volatility during the pandemic and comparing the consumer spending behavior of broadly similar households, people spent roughly 10 percent (standard error 3.4) of their EIPs on non-durable goods and services in the three months of arrival, with little evidence of additional spending in the subsequent three months or on durable goods. People who report mostly spending their EIPs spent 14.3% (3.7) of their EIPs compared to 5.9% (8.3) and -1.6% (5.0) for those who report mostly paying off debt and saving respectively. People with low liquid wealth and people receiving their EIPs on debit cards spent at higher rates: 21.7% (6.4) and 36.8% (24.6) respectively, with economically larger estimates for total spending.

Key concepts: Consumer Expenditure Survey, Consumer expenditure, Economics, Consumer spending, Payment, Public economics, Aggregate expenditure, Macroeconomics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Household Spending Responses to the Economic Impact Payments of 2020: Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey — Research Paper | ScholarLens