IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/reveho/v13y2015i4p1043-1053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A note on the ‘food paradox’: some contradictory evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Donald Vitaliano

Abstract

A sample of 200 households in one New York City neighborhood in 1904 shows constant per capita food consumption as households grow in size, holding constant per capita expenditure. Logan (Econ Inq 49(4):1008–1028, 2011 ) presents US historical evidence that per capita food consumption declines as households grow, replicating contemporary cross-national evidence reported by Deaton and Paxson (J Political Econ 106(5):897–930, 1998 ), which they describe as a ‘paradox’. Possible reasons for the contradictory evidence include minimal price variation within a city, greater homogeneity of household units, more being spend on rent leading to greater benefits of sharing living space, and application of the unitary household model to a more appropriate setting. Time series estimates of US price and income elasticity of food demand show constant or increasing per capita consumption, which also contradicts the received literature. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Donald Vitaliano, 2015. "A note on the ‘food paradox’: some contradictory evidence," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 1043-1053, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:reveho:v:13:y:2015:i:4:p:1043-1053
    DOI: 10.1007/s11150-013-9206-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11150-013-9206-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11150-013-9206-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trevon D. Logan, 2011. "Economies Of Scale In The Household: Puzzles And Patterns From The American Past," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(4), pages 1008-1028, October.
    2. John Gibson, 2002. "Why Does the Engel Method Work? Food Demand, Economies of Size and Household Survey Methods," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 64(4), pages 341-359, September.
    3. Angus Deaton & Christina Paxson, 1998. "Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 897-930, October.
    4. Li Gan & Victoria Vernon, 2003. "Testing the Barten Model of Economies of Scale in Household Consumption: Toward Resolving a Paradox of Deaton and Paxson," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1361-1377, December.
    5. Angus Deaton & Christina Paxson, 2003. "Engel's What? A Response to Gan and Vernon," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1378-1381, December.
    6. Gibson, John, 2002. "Why Does the Engel Method Work? Food Demand, Economies of Size and Household Survey Methods," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 64(4), pages 341-359, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jayasinghe, Maneka & Chai, Andreas & Ratnasiri, Shyama & Smith, Christine, 2017. "The power of the vegetable patch: How home-grown food helps large rural households achieve economies of scale & escape poverty," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 62-74.
    2. Timothy J. Halliday, 2010. "Mismeasured Household Size and its Implications for the Identification of Economies of Scale," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(2), pages 246-262, April.
    3. Trevon D. Logan, 2011. "Economies Of Scale In The Household: Puzzles And Patterns From The American Past," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(4), pages 1008-1028, October.
    4. Karbasi, A. & Mohammadzadeh, S.H., 2018. "Estimating Household Expenditure Economies of Scale in Iran," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277152, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Perali, Federico, 2008. "The second Engel law: Is it a paradox?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(8), pages 1353-1377, November.
    6. Sanae Tashiro, 2009. "Differences in Food Preparation by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the American Time Use Survey," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 161-180, December.
    7. Gutierrez, Federico H., 2018. "A Sharing Model of the Household: Explaining the Deaton-Paxson Paradox and Computing Household Indifference Scales," GLO Discussion Paper Series 166, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Alejandrina Salcedo & Todd Schoellman & Michèle Tertilt, 2012. "Families as roommates: Changes in U.S. household size from 1850 to 2000," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(1), pages 133-175, March.
    9. Echeverría, Lucía & Molina, José Alberto, 2022. "Exploring household heterogeneities of the Deaton-Paxson puzzle: Evidence for Argentina," Nülan. Deposited Documents 3622, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    10. Gibson, John, 2003. "Does Measurement Error Explain a Paradox About Household Size and Food Demand? Evidence from Variation in Household Survey Methods," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22198, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Jacobson, David & Mavrikiou, Petroula M. & Minas, Christos, 2010. "Household size, income and expenditure on food: The case of Cyprus," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 319-328, April.
    12. Shari Eli & Nicholas Li, 2015. "Caloric Requirements and Food Consumption Patterns of the Poor," NBER Working Papers 21697, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Md. Matiur Rahman & Seung-Hoon Jeon & Kyoung-Soo Yoon, 2020. "Estimation of Equivalence Scale and Assessment of Its Impact on Poverty Measurement in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, October.
    14. Berendeeva, Ekaterina & Ratnikova, Tatiana, 2016. "The Deaton–Paxson paradox in the consumption of Russian households," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 42, pages 54-74.
    15. John Gibson & Kathleen Beegle & Joachim De Weerdt & Jed Friedman, 2015. "What does Variation in Survey Design Reveal about the Nature of Measurement Errors in Household Consumption?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(3), pages 466-474, June.
    16. Brzozowski, Matthew & Crossley, Thomas F. & Winter, Joachim K., 2017. "Does survey recall error explain the Deaton–Paxson puzzle?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 18-20.
    17. Naeem Ahmed & Matthew Brzozowski & Thomas F. Crossley, 2005. "Measurement Errors in Recall Food Expenditure Data," Quantitative Studies in Economics and Population Research Reports 396, McMaster University.
    18. Schneider, Kate R., 2022. "Nationally representative estimates of the cost of adequate diets, nutrient level drivers, and policy options for households in rural Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Thomas F. Crossley & Yuqian Lu, 2018. "Returns to scale in food preparation and the Deaton–Paxson puzzle," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-19, March.
    20. John Gibson & Bonggeun Kim, 2018. "Economies of scale, bulk discounts, and liquidity constraints: comparing unit value and transaction level evidence in a poor country," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 21-39, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engel curves; ‘Food paradox’; Household food consumption; Household scale economies; D1; N3;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • N3 - Economic History - - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:reveho:v:13:y:2015:i:4:p:1043-1053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.