INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
An IntertemporalAnalysis of Households Consumption Decisions Among  
Staff of University of Uyo, Nigeria  
*Samuel Effiong Isaac, Effanga Anthony  
Department of Economics, University of Uyo  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000809  
Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 24 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This study explores the factors shaping how staff of the University of Uyo make intertemporal consumption  
choices. Data were gathered from 37 respondents across academic and non-academic units, covering their  
current and expected income, years of service, age, savings plans, present and future consumption, and utility  
rankings. Using this information, intertemporal consumption, savings, and utility functions were estimated for  
two periods: the present period, defined by each respondent’s current rank and income, and the future period,  
tied to their next promotion and expected earnings. The findings reveal that current income and age play  
central roles in influencing both consumption and saving behavior. Evidence from the Euler equation suggests  
that the expected marginal utility of future consumption exceeds that of the present, implying a stronger  
incentive to save now for higher future satisfaction. The study highlights the importance of sound financial  
planning and supportive welfare policies to promote smoother consumption over time.  
Key Words: Consumption, Savings, intertemporal choice, utility maximization  
INTRODUCTION  
The decision to consume is one of the basic economic decisions made by households in the economy. This  
decision is driven by a number of factors. Over the years, there have been emergence of theoretical explanation  
of the determinants of household consumption behavior. At the macroeconomic level, the Keynesian absolute  
income hypotheses of consumption had dominated the discuss at a time (Bhatia, 2006). The absolute income  
hypothesis came with very little or no microeconomics foundation. The attempt to provide microeconomic  
foundation to macroeconomic theories led to the emergence of intertemporal consumption analysis and  
consequently the emergence of other consumption theories (Palley, 2005). In microeconomics, the analysis of  
consumption is concern with the behavior of individuals and households regarding how much to consume,  
what to consume and when to consume (Hall, 1988). Consumption behavior by households can respond to a  
wide range of factors such as prices, income, expectation and time preference of consumption.  
Many areas of private and public economics require the understanding of households’ intertemporal decision.  
For example, issues such as household investment on human capital, household savings, fertility choices  
require the knowledge of the intemporal household behavior. Consumption behavior is also crucial for  
understanding both short-term business cycles and long-term economic growth (Samuelson and Nordhaus,  
2009). There are two main categories of households: married couples and singles. It has been said that most of  
the studies on intertemporal consumption decisions has been performed under the assumption that these two  
types of households have identical intertemporal behavior (Mazzocco, 2002).  
Studies on household intertemporal behavior also assume that each household can be represented using a  
unique utility function independently of the number of decision-makers (Attanasio and Paiella 2006). Under  
this assumption, life-cycle models of household consumption behavior have been developed and estimated  
(Mazzocco, 2002). In this study, the intertemporal allocation of resources for consumption purposes is  
Page 9917  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
modelled as the joint decision of household members. Thus, the household is characterized as a group of  
agents, each of them being represented by individual preferences.  
The life cycle model of household consumption choices appears to be consistent with households’  
intertemporal consumption decision (Campbell and Mankiw, 1989; Canova and Ravn, 1996; Dohmen et al,  
2012). Similar to intertemporal consumption decision, the life cycle hypothesis of consumption explains how  
individuals make consumption decisions over their entire lifetime, taking into account their income and wealth  
level at different stages of their life (Campbell and Mankiw, 1990; Cambell and Deaton, 1989). The theory  
suggests that there are three periods or stages in an individual’s consumption throughout his lifetime, namely;  
the early years of working life where income is low, the later years of working life where earnings is high, and  
retirement during which an individual dissave to consume (Corroll, 1997). It is expected that rational  
individuals will smoothen their consumption over their life time to maintain their standard of living despite  
fluctuations in income.  
Although the life cycle model clearly mirrors intertemporal choices, the analysis of intertemporal consumption  
decisions can be done in more disaggregated time periods and the focus could be between two specific periods  
which represent the present and the immediate future period, perhaps for analytical simplicity. The estimate of  
household intertemporal consumption behavior has been done frequently using the Euler equation which is a  
mathematical equation that relates household consumption behavior to their preference for consumption over  
time, their expectation about future income and cost of borrowing money (Ascari, Magnussonc and  
Mavroeidis, 2019). This provides a framework for understanding how individuals make intertemporal  
consumption decisions by balancing the trade-off between present and future consumption, taking into account  
their preferences, expectations and interest rate.  
The life cycle consumption model’s assumption about the flow of income throughout an individual’s lifetime is  
always consistent with the income flow of salary earners in the private and public sectors. The same may not  
always be said about business men and entrepreneurs whose earnings closely follows the pattern of the  
business cycle. However, workers in the public sector in Nigeria seems to have more job security than those in  
the private sector who may lose their jobs due to downturn in the business cycle and consequently truncate  
what was supposed to be a steady and predictable flow of income throughout one’s life time. Therefore, the  
theoretical prediction of the life cycle and intertemporal consumption theory will most likely be observable  
among workers in the public sector in Nigeria. Thus, this study focused on staff of the University of Uyo who  
are employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The study examines how this category of households  
makes intemporal consumption decisions and the factors that drives their decision.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  
This section draws on life-cycle, behavioral, and intertemporal consumption theories, viewing consumption as  
a lifetime choice shaped by limited resources. The intertemporal approach explains that people rarely spend all  
their income in one period; they spread consumption across time to sustain a stable standard of living.  
Classical ideas such as the Fisher model and the life-cycle hypothesis highlight deliberate planning, while  
behavioral economics reminds us that habits, self-control issues, framing, and liquidity constraints often affect  
real-world decisions. Individuals constantly weigh today’s consumption against tomorrow’s needs, guided by  
expected income, interest rates, and their own perceptions of the future.  
Intertemporal consumption decision is approached as utility maximization problem. Thus, we can start from  
the individual utility maximization problem which could be stated as follows;  
Maximize:  
U = U(X1, X2 … Xn)………………………………………………….Equ(1)  
Subject to:  
Page 9918  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Y ≥ P X1 + P X2 + ⋯ P Xn……………………………………..…Equ(2)  
1
2
n
U is the individual utility function which depends on the consumption commodities X1, X2…Xn while Y is the  
income of the consumer and P1, P2,..Pn are the prices of the commodities. The consumer can spend his entire  
income on the purchase of all the commodities (P1X1, P2X2,…PnXn) or save some of his income. If we  
consider the utility of an individual from the consumption of the commodities over different periods, the utility  
maximization problem could be expressed as follows;  
Maximize:  
U = U(U1, U2 … Un)…………………………………………………………….. Equ(3)  
Subject to:  
Y
Y
Y
C
C
C
n
1
2
n
1
2
+
…
≥
+
1+r + ⋯ (  
n………………………………… Equ(4)  
)
1+r  
0
n
0
(
)
(
)
(
)
1+r  
1+r  
1+r  
1+r  
Here U1, U2…Un are the individual utilities in different periods. Y1, Y2…Yn are individuals’ income in  
different periods while C1, C2…Cn are individual consumption expenditure on commodities in different  
periods. This means that for each period, consumption expenditure represented by C1, C2…Cn is respectively a  
function of P1X1, P2X2…PnXn while the utilities in each period represented by U1, U2…Un is respectively a  
1
function of X1, X2…Xn. The discount factor  
is used to discount individuals’ income and expenditure to  
1+r  
reflect their present values while r is the market interest rate.  
We can consider a simple model of inter-temporal choice where the individual has a life time of two periods  
(present and future) and has a zero initial wealth. We assume that the present and future income levels (Y1 and  
Y2) are known with certainty and that individual’s preferences and the market interest rate (r) are given. We  
also assume that the individual does not wish to transmit or bequeath any wealth to the next generation. The  
main objective is to maximize present and future utility (U1, U2). The problem is to determine the utility-  
maximizing combination of present and future consumption levels (C1 and C2), subject to the present and  
future income constraint. This could be stated as follows;  
Maximize:  
U = U(C1, C2)……………………………. Equ(5)  
Subject to:  
Y
C
2
Y1 + 1+r = C1 + 1+2r……………………… ………Equ(6)  
The left-hand side of the income constraint gives the present value of income while the right-hand side gives  
the present value of consumption expenditure. At present, the individual can choose to consume less than the  
present income (Y1) and save some or, consume more than the present income (Y1) and become a borrower; or  
just to consume an amount equal to Y1. In more extreme cases, a consumer may decide to save all his present  
income(Y1) and consume it in the future period along with the future income. In such case present  
consumption(C1) will be equals to zero and consumption in the future period(C2) will be given as;  
(
)
C2 = Y1 1 + r + Y2……………………………………………Equ(7)  
Equ(7) shows that since the individual saved all his income(Y1) in the present period, his income(Y1) will yield  
some interest (1+r) which is then added to Y2 for consumption in period C2. If the individual consumes all his  
income (Y1 and Y2) in the present by borrowing his future income for consumption in the present period,  
consumption in the future period(C2) will be equals to zero and consumption in the present period (C1) will be  
given as;  
Page 9919  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Y
2
C1 = Y1 + 1+r … … … … … … …………………………..Equ(8)  
Equ(8) shows that the individual borrows his future income (Y2) in addition to current income(Y1) for  
consumption in the current period(C1). 1/(1+r) is the discount factor which reflects the cost of borrowing. The  
intertemporal consumption decisions of individuals are also described in the Euler equation. The equation  
states that individuals will allocate their income for consumption between the present and the future period  
such that the marginal utility of consumption in the present period is equal to the discounted expected marginal  
utility of consumption in the future period. Thus, from equ(5) the Euler equation derived as follows;  
1
′
′
(
)
(
)
U C1  
=
E[U C2 ]  
1 + r  
U’(C1) is the marginal utility of consumption in the current period, 1/(1+r) is the discount factor which  
captures the individual preference for consumption today against consumption in the future. E[U’(C2)] is the  
expected marginal utility of consumption in the future period taking into account all possible future states of  
the economy. The Euler equation suggest that individuals will smoothen the consumption of their income over  
time to optimize their consumption from present and future periods.  
In this study we also assume two period of income earnings and consumption. The present period is the period  
where the individual is in his or her current rank in public service and the income and consumption reported  
during this period is the present income and consumption. The expected future period is the period of the  
individuals next promotion and the associated expected income and consumption from that period.  
Empirical Literature  
There are a number of empirical studies about intertemporal consumption decisions of households. Karlsson,  
Garling and Selart (1995) in their study shows that the effects of prior outcomes in the form of temporary  
income change influence the individuals’ choices on immediate and delayed consumption. They found that  
propensity to consume was greater when the respondents received an income increase rather than when there is  
an income decrease with an available savings. This means that in the behavioral life-cycle theory, individuals  
do not use their savings for their current or immediate consumption. The expected increase in income is the  
reason why the respondents choose to consume today.  
Loewenstein (1998) also comes up with the result similar with the study made by Karlsson, et. al (1995). The  
study showed that the respondents chose not to consume now because they considered the delay premium as a  
gain. The delay premium pertains to the value that is being received by an individual when he/she chooses to  
give up the object now, and getting or it later or in the future. We could consider the delay premium as a gain  
or additions in the savings of the individual.  
The study Levin (1998) shows that the behavioral life-cycle consumption model can explain how the changes  
in different types of financial assets, could affect the consumption of the individuals at or near retirement. In  
this study, it is found out that the consumption expenditure is sensitive to the changes in income and liquid  
assets, but is not sensitive to the changes in the value of the other types of assets such as houses and social  
security.  
Shefrin and Thaler (1988) in their study incorporated qualitative factors such as self-control, mental accounting  
and framing in an attempt to do a behavioral enrichment of the intertemporal and life-cycle theory of  
consumption called the Behavioral Life Cycle Hypothesis. In their research, it is found out that individuals  
make consumption decisions based on their three mental accounts namely; their current income, assets and  
their future income. These factors were considered on their consumption and savings behavior.  
Britta (2012) studied the influence of age on consumption in Germany. The findings in the study shows that the  
consumption of the young people in Germany pertains more on food and non-alcoholic beverages unlike those  
on the old group, which spends more on their health. This already pertains to the idea of the life cycle  
hypothesis that people save in order for them to have money to spend for their health when they retire.  
Page 9920  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Ascari, Magnussonc and Mavroeidis, (2019) in their study developed econometric methods, that are robust to  
weak instruments and exploit information in possible structural changes and applied it to study the Euler  
equation for consumption using aggregate US post-war data. They investigated several extensions to the  
baseline Euler equation model. The results were insensitive to using linear versus nonlinear specifications,  
different instruments or different consumption data. The result also shows that consumption was very sensitive  
to asset returns. With risk-free returns, the elasticity of intertemporal substitution was tightly estimated around  
zero, while with stock market returns, it was significantly positive but very imprecisely estimated.  
Despite the many empirical literature on intertemporal consumption decisions, a clear research gap exists  
regarding micro-level analyses within developing economies, particularly in Nigeria. Most existing studies,  
such as those by Karlsson et al. (1995), Loewenstein (1998), and Ascari et al. (2019), have focused on  
developed economies using aggregate or experimental data, neglecting the contextual realities of African  
households. Furthermore, previous research has emphasized theoretical and behavioral dimensions of  
consumption while overlooking institutional and socioeconomic factors such as job security and inflation  
which strongly influence consumption smoothing among salaried workers in Nigeria. Hence, limited evidence  
exists on how university staff in Nigeria allocate income intertemporally across consumption, savings, and  
investment decisions, creating a gap this study seeks to address empirically.  
METHODOLOGY  
The sample size of 37 respondents, though relatively small, was determined by the accessibility of staff during  
the survey and the need for a focused exploratory analysis. Variables such as income, consumption, age,  
savings, and working years were selected based on theoretical relevance and empirical precedence from  
previous intertemporal consumption studies. Basic OLS diagnostic checks such as normality and  
heteroscedasticity tests were conducted, and potential multicollinearity was examined to ensure model  
robustness.  
Model Specification  
This study estimates household consumption function taking into consideration variables which could drives  
intertemporal choices of staff in the university such as current income, expected income, age, working years  
and savings plan. The model of this study is thus specified as follows;  
C1 = F(Y1, Y2, SAV, AGE, WYE)………………….…………………1  
Where,  
C1= Current Consumption expenditure  
Y1= Current income  
Y2 = Expected income  
SAV= Savings  
AGE= age of the consumer  
WYE= working years  
Equation 1 is estimated in a log-linearized form as follows;  
LogC1 = Bo + B1LogY1 + B2LogY2 + B3LogSAV + B4LogAGE + B5LogWYE + U … … 2  
Where Bo to B4 are the model parameters and U is the error term.  
Page 9921  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
To examine how current income(Y1), expected income(Y2), consumers age (AGE) and works years (WYE)  
affect their saving behavior which is also an intertemporal choice decision that will complement the above  
model,  
a second model is specified as follows;  
(
)
SAV = F Y1, Y2, AGE, WYE … … … … … … … .3  
Equation 3 is also estimated in a log-linear form as follows;  
LogSAV = Bo + B1LogY1 + B2LogY2 + B3LogAGE + B4LogWYE + B5LogC1 + U … . .4  
To examine how consumption from the current period(C1) and expected consumption(C1) affect individual’s  
utility, we specify and estimate the household utility function as follows;  
(
)
U = U C1, C2 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 5  
Equ(5) is estimated in the form  
U = BO + B1Log C1 + B2Log (  
C2  
(
)
) + e … … … … … … … … .6  
1 + r  
Where 1/(1+r) is the discount factor. We assume that the discount rate(r) is 22% which reflect the market  
lending rate in Nigeria. Because of the nature of this study in which survey data is used for the estimation of  
the model, diagnostic test such as unit root test and autocorrelation which essential econometric diagnostic test  
when time series data is use does not apply in the estimation of the model of this study. However, normally test  
of the error term and heteroscedasticity test are carried out accordingly.  
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS  
Summary of Survey Data  
C1  
C2  
Y1  
Y2  
SAV  
AGE  
WYE  
U
Mean  
96756.76  
80000.00  
300000.0  
35000.00  
155945.9  
120000.0  
400000.0  
50000.00  
37  
170540.5  
140000.0  
420000.0  
50000.00  
37  
213540.5  
180000.0  
500000.0  
80000.00  
37  
73783.78  
64000.00  
210000.0  
12000.00  
37  
42.62162  
41.00000  
59.00000  
29.00000  
37  
10.35135  
7.000000  
34.00000  
2.000000  
37  
5.162162  
Median  
5.000000  
7.000000  
3.000000  
37  
Maximum  
Minimum  
Observations 37  
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics  
NOTE: Details of survey data and instrument if data collection is at the appendix  
The summary statistics of the research data shows that the average current consumption spending (C1) by the  
respondents is N96,756 with a minimum spending of N35000 and a maximum spending of N300,000. The  
average expected consumption expenditure(C2) is N155,945 with a maximum of N400,000 and a minimum of  
N50,000. The average current income (Y1) of the respondents is N170,540 with a maximum earning of  
N420,000 and a minimum earning of N50,000. The average expected income (Y2) is N213,540.5 with a  
maximum of N500,000 and a minimum of N80,000. The average age of the respondent is 42.62 years. The  
oldest respondent is 59 years old while the youngest is 29 years old. The average number of years that the  
respondent has put into work is 10.35 years. The longest serving employee have worked for 34 years while the  
least have worked for just 2 years. The average utility rankings (U) from the current and expected consumption  
(C1 and C2) by the respondents in a scale of 1 to 10 is 5.16 with highest ranking of 7 and the lowest ranking of  
3.  
Page 9922  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Model Estimations  
The estimated result of the consumption model is as follows;  
Table 2: Consumption Function  
Dependent Variable: LOG(C1)  
Sample: 37  
Variable  
Coefficient  
-1.383649  
1.738932  
-0.126525  
-0.655929  
0.217191  
-0.014157  
0.954869  
0.947589  
1367.406  
0.000000  
5.32(0.07)  
0.589(0.708)  
Std. Error  
0.313363  
0.088823  
0.090399  
0.028764  
0.066907  
0.015783  
t-Statistic  
-4.415480  
19.57744  
-1.399637  
-22.80387  
3.246153  
-0.896993  
Prob.  
C
0.0001  
0.0000  
0.1716  
0.0000  
0.0028  
0.3766  
LOG(Y1)  
LOG(Y2)  
LOG(SAV)  
LOG(AGE)  
LOG(WYE)  
R-squared  
Adjusted R-squared  
F-statistic  
Prob(F-statistic)  
JB Normality Test(Prob)  
Heteroscedasticity Test  
LogC1 = −1.384 + 1.739LogY1 − 0.127LogY2 − 0.656LogSAV + 0.217 LogAGE − 0.014 LogWYE  
The estimates shows that current income exerts the strongest influence on consumption spending with a  
coefficient of 1.73, it shows that as earnings rise, families tend to raise their consumption accordingly.  
Expected future income moves in the opposite direction, though its effect is not strong enough to be  
statistically meaningful. Savings play a more decisive role, reducing consumption significantly, as reflected in  
the negative coefficient of -0.656. Age also matters. The positive coefficient of 0.217 suggests that as  
individuals grow older, their spending increases slightly. In contrast, years spent in the workforce show a mild  
dampening effect on consumption, implying that people tend to cut back as their working years accumulate.  
The adjusted R-squared of above 94 percent indicates that the included variables explain nearly all the  
variation in household consumption. Joint significance tests further confirm that the explanatory variables  
move consumption in meaningful ways. Diagnostic checks support the reliability of the estimates as both the  
normality and heteroscedasticity tests return p-values (0.07 and 0.708) that do not warrant rejecting the null  
assumptions. This means the residuals are roughly normally distributed with constant variance, suggesting that  
the model satisfies the core requirements for valid regression inference.  
The estimated result of the savings model is as follows;  
Table 3: Savings Function  
Dependent Variable: LOG(SAV)  
Sample: 37  
Variable  
C
Coefficient  
-2.063392  
2.575017  
Std. Error  
0.462081  
0.131821  
t-Statistic  
-4.465438  
19.53425  
Prob.  
0.0001  
0.0000  
LOG(Y1)  
Page 9923  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
LOG(Y2)  
-0.184167  
0.270668  
0.134029  
0.103894  
0.023456  
0.063094  
-1.374087  
2.605240  
-0.765460  
-22.80387  
0.1793  
0.0140  
0.4498  
0.0000  
LOG(AGE)  
LOG(WYE)  
-0.017955  
-1.438784  
0.937169  
LOG(C1)  
R-squared  
Adjusted R-squared  
F-statistic  
0.927029  
980.4378  
Prob(F-statistic)  
JB Normality Test(Prob)  
Heteroscedasticity Test  
0.000000  
5.063(0.07)  
0.5951(0.7037)  
LogSAV = −2.063 + 2.575LogY1 − 0.184 LogY2 + 0.271 LogAGE − 0.018 LogWYE − 1.439LogC1 + U  
The estimated household saving function for staff of the University of Uyo suggests a clear pattern in how  
different factors shape saving behavior. Current income (Y1) shows a strong and positive relationship with  
savings, indicating that households tend to save more when their earnings rise. Expected income (Y2), on the  
other hand, slightly reduces the tendency to save, implying that when people anticipate higher future earnings,  
they feel less pressure to save from what they currently earn. Still, this effect is not statistically meaningful.  
Age (AGE) stands out with a positive and significant coefficient of 0.271, showing that people save more as  
they grow older. Working years (WYE) does not have a significant effect on saving decisions. Consumption  
(C1) exerts a strong negative effect on savings, which aligns with the idea that income is shared between  
consumption and saving, so an increase in one naturally reduces the other. The R-square value indicates that  
92% of the variation in household savings is explained by the included variables, and the F-statistic confirms  
their joint significance. Tests for normality and heteroscedasticity further show that the error term is normally  
distributed with constant variance.  
Table 3: Utility Function  
Dependent Variable: U  
Sample: 37  
Variable  
C
Coefficient  
-9.925340  
1.087344  
2.361934  
LOG(C1)  
LOG(C2/(1+r))  
The estimate of the utility function in table 3 is expressed in equation form as follows;  
C2  
(
)
U = −9.923 + 1.087LOG C1 + 2.362 LOG(  
)
1 + r  
From the estimated utility function, the marginal utility from consumption in the current period(U’(C1)) is  
1.087 while the marginal utility from consumption in the future period(U’(C2)) is 2.362. Meaning that U’(C1)  
< U’(C2), indicating that individuals should save and consume more in the future period to maximize utility.  
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS  
The findings point to current income and age as the key forces shaping how households allocate their  
consumption. Expected income and years spent working do not meaningfully influence current spending,  
Page 9924  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
suggesting that people anchor their decisions more on what they earn now and their stage in life. The positive  
relationship between age and consumption mirrors the earnings pattern common among public-sector workers,  
whose income generally rises with rank and experience. This outcome supports the life-cycle hypothesis and  
echoes the conclusions of Britta (2012), showing that many individuals tend to consume more later in life. A  
similar pattern appears in the savings function: both current income and age encourage higher savings, even  
though consumption and saving move in opposite directions, as expected. The intertemporal utility estimates  
further reveal that people derive greater expected satisfaction from future consumption, implying a need to  
save more at present. This is consistent with studies by Karlsson et al. (1995) and Shefrin and Thaler (1988).  
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
Conclusions  
Individuals make intertemporal choices consciously or unconsciously. Every purchase involves deciding  
whether to buy now or postpone it, and most people try to balance their present comfort with the kind of life  
they hope to maintain in the future. This study examines how staff of the University of Uyo navigate these  
intertemporal consumption decisions. The results point to two main factors: current income and age. These  
factors shape how respondents divide their resources between spending today and saving for later.  
Interestingly, expectations about future income and remaining working years did not play a significant role.  
This suggests that many respondents do not view their future earnings as strong determinants of later spending  
choices, perhaps a reflection of how sharply the cost of living has risen in Nigeria. Since incomes rarely keep  
pace with prices, people tend to favor present consumption. Yet, the estimated utility patterns hint that greater  
saving could yield higher future well-being.  
Recommendations  
From the findings of this study, the following recommendations are offered;  
1. Individuals should be more conscious of making intertemporal choices based on their expected income  
and future consumption needs because when the future becomes the present, their income constraint may  
increasingly limit their ability to maximize utility from the consumption of their desired commodities.  
2. Government should pay more attention to improving the welfare of university staff in form increase in  
earnings so that they could make better intertemporal choices to improve their lifetime living standards.  
REFERENCES  
1. Ascari, G ; Magnussonc, L and Mavroeidis, S. (2019). Empirical evidence on the Euler equation for  
consumption in the US, Journal of Monetary Economics 117 (2021): 129–152  
2. Attanasio, P and Paiella, M(2006). Intertemporal Consumption Choices, Transaction Costs and Limited  
Participation to Financial Markets: Reconciling Data and Theory. National Bureau of Economic Research  
(NBER) Working Paper 12412  
3. Bhatia, H.L. (2006). History of Economic Thought, 4th Edition, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House  
PVT.  
4. Campbell, J. and Mankiw, N. (1989). Consumption, income, and interest rates: Reinterpreting the time  
series evidence, in NBER Macroeconomics Annual, eds. O. Blanchard, and S. Fischer, Cambridge, MA:  
MIT Press, 185—216.  
5. Campbell, J and Mankiw, N. (1990). Permanent income, current income and consumption, Journal of  
Business and Economic Statistics 8, 265—279.  
6. Cnova, F. and Ravn, M. (1996). International consumption risk sharing, International Economic Review  
37, 573—601.  
7. Campbell, J. and Deaton, A.(1989), Why is consumption so smooth?, Review of Economic Studies 56,  
357—373.  
8. Carroll, C. (1997). Buffer-Stock Saving and the Life Cycle/Permanent Income Hypothesis,Quarterly  
Journal of Economics 112, 1—56.  
Page 9925  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
9. Dohmen, Thomas., et.al. (2012). Interpreting Time-Horizon Effects in Inter-temporal Choice. Institute of  
the study of labour(IZA) Disussion Paper No 6385  
10. Hall, R. E. (1988). Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption. Journal of the Political Economy, 96(2):  
339-357  
11. Karlsson, Niklas, et.al. (1995). Explanations of Effects of Prior Outcomes on Intertemporal Choices.  
Retrieved from: http://www.gu.se/digitalAssets/1286/1286082_gpr97_nr4.pdf  
12. Loewenstein, G. (1998). Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice. Management Science 34(2): 200-214  
13. Levin, L. (1998). Are assets fungible Testing the behavioral life-cycle saving. Retrieved  
from:http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/ccarroll/papers/COS-WealthEffectsLiterature/Papers/Levin.pdf  
14. Mankiw, N., Rotemberg, J. and Summers, L.( 1985). Intertemporal substitution in macroeconomics,  
Quarterly Journal of Economics 100, 225—251.  
15. Mazzocco, M (2002). Household Intertemporal Behavior: a Collective Approach, Working Paper,  
University of Wisconsin.  
16. Palley, T.I. (2005). Relative, Permanent Income and Consumption: A Synthesis of Keynes, Duesenberry,  
Friedman and Modigliani and Brumberg. Washington, DC, 20010, pp.1-23  
17. Samuelson, P and Nordhaus, P (2009). Economics, Mc Graw Hill Publishers, New York Stover, B.  
(2012).  
The  
Influence  
of  
Age  
on  
Consumption.  
Retrieved  
from:  
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/002672/3808.html  
18. Thaler, Richard. (1979). Towards a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Retrieved from:  
http://www.eief.it/butler/files/2009/11/thaler80.pdf  
19. Weber, E., et.al. (2007). Asymmetric Discounting in Intertemporal Choice. Retrieved from:  
http://www.dangoldstein.com/papers/WeberJohnsonMilchChangBrodschollGoldstein_AsymDiscIntrtmp  
Choice_PsychSci07.pdf  
Survey Data  
C1  
Y1  
117000  
52000  
Y2  
150000  
85000  
300000  
450000  
80000  
C2  
120000  
60000  
C2/(1+22%)  
98360.6557  
49180.3279  
163934.426  
286885.246  
40983.6066  
98360.6557  
122950.82  
81967.2131  
245901.639  
65573.7705  
163934.426  
81967.2131  
81967.2131  
98360.6557  
245901.639  
163934.426  
65573.7705  
122950.82  
SAV  
AGE  
38  
29  
49  
53  
36  
56  
39  
37  
57  
32  
52  
41  
43  
40  
54  
49  
36  
43  
59  
39  
56  
45  
42  
44  
41  
WYE  
6
2
8
12  
3
30  
5
4
34  
2
20  
5
5
7
30  
27  
2
8
31  
7
32  
9
8
U
5
4
6
6
5
4
7
6
5
4
6
4
5
4
5
7
3
6
7
5
7
6
6
4
3
90000  
40000  
150000  
200000  
35000  
80000  
60000  
80000  
249000  
50000  
150000  
60000  
75000  
70000  
140000  
100000  
50000  
110000  
300000  
80000  
200000  
120000  
80000  
65000  
35000  
27000  
12000  
100000  
180000  
15000  
50000  
60000  
34000  
165000  
30000  
100000  
54000  
50000  
83000  
210000  
80000  
25000  
70000  
120000  
60000  
115000  
80000  
100000  
55000  
30000  
250000  
380000  
50000  
130000  
120000  
114000  
414000  
80000  
250000  
114000  
125000  
153000  
350000  
180000  
75000  
180000  
420000  
140000  
315000  
200000  
180000  
120000  
65000  
200000  
350000  
50000  
120000  
150000  
100000  
300000  
80000  
200000  
100000  
100000  
120000  
300000  
200000  
80000  
150000  
400000  
130000  
350000  
200000  
150000  
100000  
50000  
170000  
150000  
127000  
414000  
100000  
300000  
140000  
150000  
180000  
450000  
250000  
100000  
220000  
500000  
180000  
400000  
250000  
250000  
160000  
85000  
327868.852  
106557.377  
286885.246  
163934.426  
122950.82  
81967.2131  
40983.6066  
5
9
Page 9926  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
50000  
75000  
56000  
120000  
40000  
150000  
50000  
60000  
80000  
50000  
80000  
100000  
82000  
120000  
75000  
180000  
75000  
310000  
114000  
150000  
180000  
120000  
150000  
180000  
120000  
160000  
100000  
250000  
100000  
350000  
150000  
180000  
250000  
150000  
200000  
250000  
80000  
100000  
70000  
200000  
50000  
300000  
100000  
120000  
170000  
100000  
120000  
200000  
65573.7705  
81967.2131  
57377.0492  
163934.426  
40983.6066  
245901.639  
81967.2131  
98360.6557  
139344.262  
81967.2131  
98360.6557  
163934.426  
32000  
45000  
19000  
60000  
35000  
160000  
64000  
90000  
100000  
70000  
70000  
80000  
47  
41  
38  
50  
31  
41  
31  
37  
35  
31  
36  
49  
2
4
3
7
2
12  
2
5
6
3
4
4
4
5
7
7
6
6
4
5
6
4
8
17  
Household Consumption Questionnaire (Hcq)  
Dear Respondent,  
I am a Postgraduate student in the department of Economics, University of Uyo, conducting research on  
household intertemporal consumption decisions among staff of the University of Uyo. Please kindly provide  
answers to the following questions to the best of your knowledge. To ensure confidentiality, there is no  
question about your identity details. Be assured that the answers provided will be used only for the purpose of  
this research and not for any other purpose. The final outcome of this research can be provided to you on  
request.  
Thank You  
1. Male  
Female  
2. Married  
3. Academic  
Single  
Non academic  
Divorce  
4. Please indicate your age……………………………………..  
5. Please indicate your rank in public service…………………………………….  
6. Indicate the number of years you have worked so far…………………………..  
7. Indicate the number of work years remaining before retirement………………...  
8. Please indicate your monthly income in naira…………………………………….  
9. Indicate an estimate of your monthly expenditure on food, clothing, rent etc…………………………….  
10. Which year are you expecting your next promotion………………………………………  
11. Indicate your expected monthly earnings after your next promotion………………………  
12. Give an estimate of your  
expected consumption expenditure after  
your  
next  
promotion………………………………………….  
13. If you have a monthly saving plan other than your pension, which of the following are your serving plans  
meant for? If you have no serving plans, please tick None  
14. Car  
Land  
Building  
School fees  
Others  
None  
15. If you have a monthly saving plan, please indicate how much you save monthly  
16. ………………………………………………………………………  
17. Rank your satisfaction from your current and expected consumption in a scale of 1 to 10  
18. 1  
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10  
Page 9927  
www.rsisinternational.org