IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/19536.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Potential use of In-home Scanner Technology for Budget Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Leicester

Abstract

This paper considers the potential role of in-home scanners as a method of data collection for national budget surveys such as the Consumer Expenditure Survey. A detailed comparison is made between scanner data and diary-based budget survey data for food at home in the UK. Levels of recorded spending are lower in scanner data for all commodities, but patterns of spending are similar. A large part of the difference is explained by households in the scanner survey failing to record any food spending in a given week. The gaps are widened once demographic differences between the surveys are controlled for. There is clear evidence that short-term diaries do not accurately capture household food spending patterns given infrequency of purchase for some commodity groups. Conditional on store choice, demographics play little role in explaining food spending patterns in scanner data. This suggests that attempts to impute detailed spending patterns from aggregate store-level spending would be difficult.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Leicester, 2013. "The Potential use of In-home Scanner Technology for Budget Surveys," NBER Working Papers 19536, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:19536
    Note: PE TWP
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19536.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen Zhen & Justin L. Taylor & Mary K. Muth & Ephraim Leibtag, 2009. "Understanding Differences in Self-Reported Expenditures between Household Scanner Data and Diary Survey Data: A Comparison of Homescan and Consumer Expenditure Survey," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 470-492, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Suel, Esra & Polak, John W., 2017. "Development of joint models for channel, store, and travel mode choice: Grocery shopping in London," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 147-162.
    2. Christopher D. Carroll & Thomas F. Crossley & John Sabelhaus, 2014. "Introduction to "Improving the Measurement of Consumer Expenditures"," NBER Chapters, in: Improving the Measurement of Consumer Expenditures, pages 1-20, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kuroda, Yuta, 2022. "The effect of pollen exposure on consumption behaviors: Evidence from home scanner data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Jonathan A. Parker & Nicholas S. Souleles & Christopher D. Carroll, 2014. "The Benefits of Panel Data in Consumer Expenditure Surveys," NBER Chapters, in: Improving the Measurement of Consumer Expenditures, pages 75-99, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Allison Lacko & Shu Wen Ng & Barry Popkin, 2020. "Urban vs. Rural Socioeconomic Differences in the Nutritional Quality of Household Packaged Food Purchases by Store Type," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Taylor, Mykel & Klaiber, H. Allen & Kuchler, Fred, 2016. "Changes in U.S. consumer response to food safety recalls in the shadow of a BSE scare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-64.
    3. Boonsaeng, Tullaya & Carpio, Carlos E., 2019. "A Comparison of Food Demand Estimation from Homescan and Consumer Expenditure Survey Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), January.
    4. Edward C. Jaenicke & Andrea C. Carlson, 2015. "Estimating and Investigating Organic Premiums for Retail‐Level Food Products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 453-471, October.
    5. Boonsaeng, Tullaya & Carpio, Carlos E., 2015. "Data Collection Period and Food Demand System Estimation using Cross Sectional Data," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205576, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Fabrice Etilé & Sébastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2021. "Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France [Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 915-939.
    7. Leffler, Kristyn K. & Carpio, Carlos E. & Boonsaeng, Tullaya, 2012. "Temporal Aggregation and Treatment of Zero Dependent Variables in the Estimation of Food Demand using Cross-Sectional Data," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124913, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Carlson, Andrea & Jaenicke, Edward, 2016. "Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums from 2004 to 2010," Economic Research Report 242448, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Belinda Luna-Pulido & Kruti Lehenbauer, 2019. "Determinants of Entertainment and Apparel Expenditures in an American Household," Proceedings of the 12th International RAIS Conference, April 3-4, 2019 7BL, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    10. Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell & Kate Smith, 2017. "The Importance of Product Reformulation Versus Consumer Choice in Improving Diet Quality," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(333), pages 34-53, January.
    11. Dharmasena, Senarath & Davis, George & Capps, Oral, Jr., 2014. "Partial versus General Equilibrium Calorie and Revenue Effects Associated with a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-17.
    12. Kristin Kiesel & Mengxin Ji, 2021. "Did state‐mandated restrictions on sugar‐sweetened drinks in California high schools increase soda purchases in school neighborhoods?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1443-1475, December.
    13. Davis, Christopher G. & Dong, Diansheng & Blayney, Donald P. & Yen, Steven T. & Stillman, Richard, 2012. "U.S. Fluid Milk Demand: A Disaggregated Approach," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, February.
    14. Oral Capps & Muxi Cheng & Jennifer Kee & Samuel L. Priestley, 2023. "A cross‐sectional analysis of the demand for coffee in the United States," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 494-514, March.
    15. Andrew Leicester, 2012. "How might in-home scanner technology be used in budget surveys?," IFS Working Papers W12/01, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    16. Buzby, Jean C. & Hyman, Jeffrey, 2012. "Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 561-570.
    17. Todd, Jessica E. & Leibtag, Ephraim S. & Penberthy, Corttney, 2011. "Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods," Economic Information Bulletin 117976, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni, 2020. "Effects of Public Health Insurance Expansions on Consumption Expenditures of Targeted Households," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304513, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Volpe, Richard & Okrent, Abigail, 2012. "Assessing the Healthfulness of Consumers' Grocery Purchases," Economic Information Bulletin 262129, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    20. Rhodes, Charles, 2012. "An Empirical Analysis of Socio-Demographic Stratification in Sweetened Carbonated Soft-Drink Purchasing," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124678, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:19536. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.