Budgeting Styles Among The 11 Abm
Budgeting Styles Among The 11 Abm
Budgeting Styles Among The 11 Abm
OF PATRONAGE OF MARY
DEVELOPMENT
SCHOOL
This research is
Practical Research I
By:
Christine Matas
Raoul Famillaran
August 2019
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
Chapter
INTRODUCTION
Theoretical Background
THE PROBLEM
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research Environment
Research Respondents
Research Instruments
Research Procedures
Treatment of Data
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Acknowledgement
First of all, we would like to thank our parents for always being there for us
whenever we need you and for always supporting us. Thank you also for
always ready in giving financial support. Thank you parents for believing us
that we will succeed this our research. Thank you our beloved parents.
To our classmates, we thank you for giving some advice in making our
research. We thank you for helping us in our research by giving some
thoughts. Thank you classmates!
Lastly, to our beloved God. For enlighting our minds and foe guiding us
in our journey in making a research. We thank him very much for giving us
strength, knowledge and power for making this research be more beautiful
than we have thought. Thank you our beloved God.
CHAPTER I
RATIONALE
THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
Related Literature
Existing explanations of personal budgeting are based on
Thaler’s (1985) seminal work.
Combining the notions of “transaction utility” and gain-loss
utility, he argues that individuals treat the consequences of each
transaction in isolation. In this case, he shows that they can solve
their consumption-savings problems by means of transaction-
specific budgets, a result which echoes Strotz’s (1957)
explanation of budgeting based on separable consumption
utilities. In reality, however, people set budgets for sufficiently
long periods (a week or a month) so that each budget covers
many transactions. Also, in his (and Strotz’s) deterministic model,
people can achieve the same utility with and without budgets. But
if people faced uncertainty, they would never impose ex ante
budgets which bind ex post; that is, they do not exhibit a strict
demand for budgets as commitment devices.
Finally, transaction and gain-loss utility seem to have no
direct link with self -control problem, which the literature usually
views as the underlying cause of personal budgeting. Other
papers have shown that gain-loss utility can explain other
phenomena commonly classified as mental accounting, such as
choice bracketing (Koch and Nafziger (2016)), which are however
different from budgeting. This paper relates to the mechanism-
design literature on the trade-offs between commitment and
flexibility—in particular to Amador et al. (2006) and Halac and
Yared (2014).12 It departs from both papers by introducing
multiple consumption goods and uncertainty about intratemporal
trade-offs, thus uncovering how this type of uncertainty affects
qualitatively the commitment-flexibility trade-off and its
solutions. Amador et al. (2006) showed that in a world with
unidimensional consumption savings floors often coincide with the
fully optimal commitment plans (within a very general class of
plans).
Halac and Yared (2014) also differ from the present paper by
focusing on the role of information persistency. In their setting,
optimal commitment plans can distort future consumption
choices, even though those choices cause no conflict of interests
between the individuals’ selves once today’s choice is fixed. The
reason is that information persistency creates a link between the
doer’s expected utility from tomorrow’s choices and his
information today; hence those choices can be exploited to relax
today’s incentive constraints, as in other dynamic mechanism-
design problems.13 The results of the present paper do not
depend on the correlation between the doer’s pieces of
information.
This paper is also related to the literature that studies how
rationing affects consumer behavior (Howard (1977), Ellis and
Naughton (1990), Madden (1991)). By imposing a savings floor
or a good-specific budget, an individual is essentially rationing his
future selves as the government of a centralized economy may
ration its citizens. Unlike this literature, however, here rationing
assumes the function of a commitment device. The rationing
literature has shown that predicting the effects of good-specific
budgets is far from trivial. Its insights will be useful to identify
conditions under which budgets can help the individual.
References
Aguiar, M. and M. Amador (2011). Growth in the shadow of
expropriation. Quarterly
Journal of Economics 126(2), 651–697.
Ali, S. N. (2011). Learning self-control. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 126(2), 857–893.
Alonso, R., I. Brocas, and J. D. Carrillo (2014). Resource
allocation in the brain. The
Review of Economic Studies 81(2), 501–534.
Alonso, R. and N. Matouschek (2008). Optimal delegation. The
Review of EconomicStudies 75(1), 259–293.
Amador, M. and K. Bagwell (2013a). Money burning in the theory
of delegation. Mimeo,Stanford University.
Amador, M. and K. Bagwell (2013b). The theory of optimal
delegation with an application to tariff caps. Econometrica 81(4),
1541–1599.
Amador, M., I. Werning, and G.-M. Angeletos (2003).
Commitment vs. flexibility. Technical report, National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Amador, M., I. Werning, and G.-M. Angeletos (2006).
Commitment vs flexibility. Econometrica 74(2), 365–396.
Ambrus, A. and G. Egorov (2009). Delegation and nonmonetary
incentives. Unpublishedworking paper.
Ambrus, A. and G. Egorov (2013). Comment on ”commitment vs.
flexibility”. Econometrica 81(5), 2113–2124.
THE PROBLEM
1.1 Name
1.2 Sex
1.3 Age
1.4 Occupation of parents
2.1 Transportation
2.2 Food
2.3 School Related Expenses
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research Environment
Research Respondents
The research choose 25 11 ABM students of Patronage of Mary
Development School. The researchers give questionnaires only to those
students that are willing to participate and available at the moment of
administration of questionnaires.
Name: Sex:
Age:
Occupation of parents;
Father:
Mother:
1. How it may affect in the daily allowance of the 11- Accountancy Business
and Management students in term of;
1.1 Transportation:
1.2 Food:
Research Procedures
Data Gathering
Treatment of Data
Definition of terms