Ying (2003) conducted a research explaining the fact how children influenced the spending patterns of family and in about 27.8% of families, children’s consumption uses one third of the family’s total income. In 35.6% of families, children’s consumption uses 40% of the family’s total income. In 19.4% of families, children’s consumption takes one half of the family’s income. And in 7.4% of families, children’s consumption takes over one half of the family’s income. Thus in most families, the child’s consumption level is higher than the average per capita consumption of the family. He highlighted various factors such as higher education levels for children including extra amounts paid for private education and tutors moreover more recreational activities and high end gadgets like mobiles phone, laptops and increased expense towards health care of the children.

Krueger and Perri (2005) found out in a research paper that increase in income inequality in U.S.A was prevailing but there was no inequality consumption. This was because of different trends within-group inequality which was faced an increase in income and a little less increase consumption. They developed a simple framework to identify analytically that how income inequality could result in consumption inequality with respect to standard incomplete market model thus they wanted to document this consumption inequality facts from the U.S data. They have used data from the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey for the years 1980-2003.

Cutler (2005) tries to identify implied marginal propensity to consume out of a given income level in Hong Kong for doing this he develops a proxy measure for labor income then tries to estimate consumption function with respect to life cycle model. The author develops a reliable relation between proxy measure of labor income and long run propensity to consume the estimate calculated comes out to be 0.87 for Hong Kong depicting the fact the marginal propensity to consume is in line with other industrial countries of the world.