This paper investigates how material well-being has changed over time for those at the bottom of the distributions of income and consumption. We document the sharp differences between recent trends in measured income and consumption, focusing on families headed by a single mother. Since the early 1990s, income in the bottom decile has fallen by nearly 30 percent, while income has risen by more than 15 percent for the fourth and fifth deciles. The trends for consumption, on the other hand, show neither a sharp decline at low percentiles nor a large increase at higher percentiles. These patterns are evident in two income and two consumption data sources. We then examine several explanations for these differences. We argue that it is unlikely that reported income provides a consistent measuring stick in recent years due to large changes in both the sources of income and the reporting rates of the main income sources for single mothers during this period. Accounting for changes in the characteristics of single mothers can reconcile most of the income consumption difference above the bottom decile. For the bottom decile, simulations accounting for transfer under- reporting can account for much of the reported income decline. Finally, we consider how these trends translate into changes in well-being by investigating changes in disaggregated consumption and time use. Increases in spending on housing account for much of the increase in consumption in the bottom quintile, while increases in transportation spending account for much of the rise in the second quintile. Two datasets indicate modest improvement in housing quality, but the evidence is less strong at the very bottom. Although expenditures on food away from home and child care also rise, these categories are small, on average. The consumption of non-market time for those in the bottom half of the consumption distribution falls sharply indicating a loss in utility for those families if non-market time is valued above $3/hour. Evidence from time-use surveys suggests that the lost non-market time reflects a shift away from shopping, food production, and housework.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number
11976.
Length: Date of creation: Jan 2006 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:11976
Note: LS PE Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. Phone: 617-868-3900 Email: Web page: http://www.nber.org More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Find related papers by JEL classification: D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - General Welfare I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Diane Whitmore, 2002.
"What Are Food Stamps Worth?,"
Working Papers
847, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
[Downloadable!]