IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/obuest/v64y2002i4p341-359.html

Why Does the Engel Method Work? Food Demand, Economies of Size and Household Survey Methods

Author

Listed:
  • John Gibson

Abstract

Estimates of household size economies are needed for the analysis of poverty and inequality. This paper shows that Engel estimates of size economies are large when household expenditures are obtained by respondent recall but small when expenditures are obtained by daily recording in diaries. Expenditure estimates from recall surveys appear to have measurement errors correlated with household size. As well as demonstrating the fragility of Engel estimates of size economies, these results help resolve a puzzle raised by Deaton and Paxson (1998) about differences between rich and poor countries in the effect of household size on food demand.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:64:y:2002:i:4:p:341-359
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-0084.00023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.00023
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-0084.00023?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geoffrey Lancaster & Ranjan Ray & Maria Rebecca Valenzuela, 1999. "A Cross‐Country Study Of Equivalence Scales And Expenditure Inequality On Unit Record Household Budget Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 45(4), pages 455-482, December.
    2. Coulter, Fiona A E & Cowell, Frank A & Jenkins, Stephen P, 1992. "Equivalence Scale Relativities and the Extent of Inequality and Poverty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(414), pages 1067-1082, September.
    3. repec:bla:revinw:v:45:y:1999:i:4:p:455-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. Lanjouw, Peter & Ravallion, Martin, 1995. "Poverty and Household Size," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1415-1434, November.
    6. Dreze, Jean & Srinivasan, P. V., 1997. "Widowhood and poverty in rural India: Some inferences from household survey data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 217-234, December.
    7. Isabel McWhinney & Harold E. Champion, 1974. "The Canadian Experience with Recall and Diary Methods in Consumer Expenditure Surveys," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 3, number 2, pages 411-437, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Tripathi, Sabyasachi, 2020. "Does economic development reduce household size? Evidence from India," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 982-999.
    2. Tripathi, Sabyasachi, 2018. "Does Higher Economic Development Reduce Household Size? Evidence from India," MPRA Paper 86684, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Deon Filmer & Kinnon Scott, 2012. "Assessing Asset Indices," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(1), pages 359-392, February.
    4. Miguel Székely & Nora Lustig & Martin Cumpa & José Antonio Mejía-Guerra, 2000. "¿Sabemos qué tanta pobreza hay?," Research Department Publications 4240, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    5. Ahmad Fahme Mohd Ali & W.A. Amir Zal & Nurhanan Ab. Hamid & Tengku Fauzan Tengku Anuar & Hafizi Mat Salleh & Siti Asma Md. Rasdi, 2022. "The Moderating Effect of zakāh Distribution on the Economic Well-being of the Poor: An Analysis in Kelantan, Malaysia التأثير المعتدل لتوزيع الزكاة على الرفاهية الاقتصادية للفقراء: تحليل من ولاية كلانتان بماليزيا," Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University, Islamic Economics Institute., vol. 35(1), pages 75-97, January.
    6. Miguel Szekely & Nora Lustig & Martin Cumpa & Jose Antonio Mejia, 2004. "Do we know how much poverty there is?," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 523-558.
    7. Gero Carletto & Alberto Zezza, 2006. "Being poor, feeling poorer: Combining objective and subjective measures of welfare in Albania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 739-760.
    8. Maneka Jayasinghe & Christine Smith, 2021. "Poverty Implications of Household Headship and Food Consumption Economies of Scales: A Case Study from Sri Lanka," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 157-185, May.
    9. 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).
    10. Meenakshi, J. V. & Ray, Ranjan, 2002. "Impact of household size and family composition on poverty in rural India," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 539-559, October.
    11. Udo Ebert & Patrick Moyes, 2009. "Household decisions and equivalence scales," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 22(4), pages 1039-1062, October.
    12. Wu, Alfred M. & Ramesh, M., 2014. "Poverty Reduction in Urban China: The Impact of Cash Transfers," MPRA Paper 54358, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Maurice Schiff, 2008. "On the underestimation of migration’s income and poverty impact," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 267-284, September.
    14. Regier, Gregory & Zereyesus, Yacob & Dalton, Timothy & Amanor-Boadu, Vincent, 2015. "Do Adult Equivalence Scales Matter in Poverty Estimates? A Ghana Case Study," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212487, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. van de Walle, Dominique, 2011. "Lasting welfare effects of widowhood in a poor country," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5734, The World Bank.
    16. Jagannadha Tamvada, 2010. "Entrepreneurship and welfare," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 65-79, January.
    17. Iván Velásquez Castellanos & Dil Bahadur Rahut, 2012. "Household Welfare, Extreme and Chronic Poverty Between Indigenous Groups of Bolivia," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 1-28, June.
    18. Keisuke Kawata & Leksay Keoyasan & Yuichiro Yoshida, 2014. "Expenditure Growth in Laos Between 1997 and 2008 : Is It Due to the Improvement of Social Factors or their Returns?," IDEC DP2 Series 4-5, Hiroshima University, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC).
    19. Headey, Derek & Hirvonen, Kalle & Alderman, Harold, 2024. "Estimating the cost and affordability of healthy diets: How much do methods matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty

    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:bla:obuest:v:64:y:2002:i:4:p:341-359. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.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.