We analyse life-cycle saving decisions when households use simple heuristics, or rules of thumb, rather than solve the underlying intertemporal optimization problem. We simulate life-cycle saving decisions using three simple rules and compute utility losses relative to the solution of the optimization problem. Our simulations suggest that utility losses induced by following simple decision rules are relatively low. Moreover, the two main saving motives reflected by the canonical life-cycle model -long-run consumption smoothing and short-run insurance against income shocks -can be addressed quite well by saving rules that do not require computationally demanding tasks such as backward induction.Keywords: saving, life-cycle models, bounded rationality, rules of thumb JEL classification: D91; E21 * Corresponding author: Joachim Winter, Department of Economics, University of Munich, Ludwigstr.33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Email: winter@lmu.de. This paper is a substantially revised and extended version of unpublished research by Rodepeter and Winter (1999). We would like to thank Michael Adam, Axel Börsch-Supan, Thomas Crossley, Angelika Eymann, Werner Güth, Silke Januszewski, Ronald Lee, Alexander Ludwig, Annamaria Lusardi, Daniel McFadden, Matthew Rabin, Paul Ruud, Daniel Schunk, the special issue editor (Rachel Griffith) and referees, and participants at numerous seminars and conferences for helpful discussions and comments. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through SFB 504 at the University of Mannheim (Rodepeter and Winter) and through GRK 801 at the University of Munich (Schlafmann). Kathrin Schlafmann also gratefully acknowledges support by LMU Mentoring.
This paper describes how German households save, and how their saving behavior is linked to public policy, notably pension policy.Our analysis is based on a synthetic panel of four cross sections of the German Income and Expenditure Survey ("Einkommens-und Verbrauchsstichproben," EVS), 1978, 1983, 1988 and 1993. The paper carefully distinguishes among several saving measures and concepts. It separates discretionary savings from mandatory savings, and uses two flow measures, namely first the sum of purchases of assets minus the sum of sales of assets, and second the residual of income minus consumption.Our main finding is a hump-shaped age-saving profile. However, savings remain positive in old age, even for most low income households. The generous mandatory German public pension system is a prime candidate to explain this pattern.Address:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.