We show the extent of errors made in the award of disability insurance using matched survey-administrative data. False rejections (Type I errors) are widespread and characterized by large gender differences. Women with a severe, work-limiting, permanent impairment are 20 percentage points more likely to be rejected than men, controlling for the type of health condition, occupation, and a host of demographic characteristics. The differences by gender arise because women are more likely to be assessed as being able to find other work than observationally equivalent men. Despite this, after rejection, women with a self-reported work limitation do not return to work, compared to rejected women without a work limitation. We investigate whether these gender differences in Type I errors are due to women being in better health than men, to women having lower pain thresholds, to women applying more readily for disability insurance, or to women applying with harder-to-verify work limitations. None of these explanations are consistent with the data. By contrast, we find evidence suggesting that there are different acceptance thresholds for men and women.

We compare the empirical performance of a standard incomplete markets asset pricing model with that of a novel model with constrained Pareto‐optimal allocations. We represent the models’ stochastic discount factors in terms of the cross‐sectional distribution of consumption and use these representations to evaluate the models’ empirical implications. The first model is inconsistent with the equity premium in the United States, United Kingdom, and Italy. The second model is consistent with the equity premium and the risk‐free rate in all three countries if the coefficient of relative risk aversion is roughly 5 and the quarterly discount factor is less than 0.5.

Assessing the importance of uninsurable wage risk for individual financial choices faces two challenges. First, the identification of the marginal effect requires a measure of at least one component of risk that cannot be diversified or avoided. Moreover, measures of uninsurable wage risk must vary over time to eliminate unobserved heterogeneity. Second, evaluating the economic significance of risk requires knowledge of the size of all the wage risk actually faced. Existing estimates are problematic because measures of wage risk fail to satisfy the "non-avoidability" requirement. This creates a downward bias which is at the root of the small estimated effect of wage risk on portfolio choices. To tackle this problem we match panel data of workers and firms and use the variability in the profitability of the firm that is passed over to workers to obtain a measure of uninsurable risk. Using this measure to instrument total variability in individual earnings, we find that the marginal effect of uninsurable wage risk is much larger than estimates that ignore endogeneity. We bound the economic impact of risk and find that its overall effect is contained, not because its marginal effect is small but because its size is small. And the size of uninsurable wage risk is small because firms provide substantial wage insurance.

We characterize infrequent durables stock adjustment by consumers who also derive utility from non-durable consumption flows in the presence of idiosyncratic income uncertainty. The data we analyse include subjective future income uncertainty measures, which we use as instruments in the estimation of relevant parameters of heterogeneous consumers' dynamic adjustment problems. The data feature two conceptually distinct sources of variation: cross-sectional heterogeneity of the sampled households' dynamic problems, and history-dependent heterogeneity in their situation during the observation period. We note that the latter should affect the likelihood but not the size of stock adjustment decisions, and find broad support for theoretical predictions in formal selection-controlled regressions based on this insight.

In this article we study consumption network effects. Does the consumption of our peers affect our own consumption? How large is such effect? What are the economic mechanisms behind it? We use administrative panel data on Danish households to construct a measure of consumption based on tax records on income and assets. We combine tax record data with matched employer–employee data to identify peer groups based on workplace, which gives us a much tighter and credible definition of networks than used in previous literature. We use the non-overlapping network structure of one’s peers group, as well as firm-level shocks, to build valid instruments for peer consumption. We estimate non-negligible and statistically significant network effects, capable of generating sizable multiplier effect at the macro-level. We also investigate what mechanisms generate such effects, distinguishing between intertemporal and intratemporal consumption effects as well as a more traditional risk sharing view.

We propose a new approach to identify the strength of the precautionary motive and the extent of self-insurance in response to earnings risk based on Euler equation estimates. To address endogeneity problems, we use Norwegian administrative data and instrument consumption and earnings volatility with the variance of firm-specific shocks. The instrument is valid because firms pass some of their productivity shocks onto wages; moreover, for most workers, firm shocks are hard to avoid. Our estimates suggest a coefficient of relative prudence of 2, in a very plausible range.

We evaluate the allocation of risk between firms and their workers using matched employer‐employee panel data. Unlike previous contributions, this paper focuses on idiosyncratic shocks to the firm, which are the correct empirical counterpart of the theoretical notion of diversifiable risk. We allow for both temporary and permanent shocks to output and find that firms absorb temporary fluctuations fully but insure workers against permanent shocks only partially. Risk‐sharing considerations can account for about 15 percent of overall earnings variability, the remainder originating from idiosyncratic shocks to individual workers. Our welfare calculations indicate that firms are an important vehicle of insurance provision.

We provide a systematic analysis of the properties of individual returns to wealth using 12 years of population data from Norway's administrative tax records. We document a number of novel results. First, individuals earn markedly different average returns on their net worth (a standard deviation of 22.1%) and on its components. Second, heterogeneity in returns does not arise merely from differences in the allocation of wealth between safe and risky assets: returns are heterogeneous even within narrow asset classes. Third, returns are positively correlated with wealth: moving from the 10th to the 90th percentile of the net worth distribution increases the return by 18 percentage points (and 10 percentage points if looking at net‐of‐tax returns). Fourth, individual wealth returns exhibit substantial persistence over time. We argue that while this persistence partly arises from stable differences in risk exposure and assets scale, it also reflects heterogeneity in sophistication and financial information, as well as entrepreneurial talent. Finally, wealth returns are correlated across generations. We discuss the implications of these findings for several strands of the wealth inequality debate.

We examine the link between wage and consumption inequality using a life-cycle model incorporating consumption and family labor supply decisions. We derive analytical expressions for the dynamics of consumption, hours, and earnings of two earners in the presence of correlated wage shocks, nonseparability, progressive taxation, and asset accumulation. The model is estimated using panel data for hours, earnings, assets, and consumption. We focus on family labor supply as an insurance mechanism and find strong evidence of smoothing of permanent wage shocks. Once family labor supply, assets, and taxes are properly accounted for there is little evidence of additional insurance.

We study choices of households deciding on consumption and allocation of spouses’ time to work, leisure, and child care. With uncertainty, the allocation of goods and time over the life cycle also serves the purpose of smoothing marginal utility in response to shocks. Combining data on consumption, wages, hours of work, and time spent with children, we compute the sensitivity of consumption and time allocation to transitory and permanent wage shocks. We find that family labor supply responses depend on three counteracting forces: complementarity of leisure time, substitutability of time in the production of child services, and added worker effects.