IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v97y2015i2p390-404..html

Expenditure Response to Increases in In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy K.M. Beatty
  • Charlotte J. Tuttle

Abstract

Economic theory predicts that households who receive less in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits than they spend on food will treat SNAP benefits as if they were cash. However, empirical tests of these predictions draw different conclusions. In this study, we reexamine this question using recent increases in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, the largest of which was due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We find that increases in benefits cause households to increase their food budget share by more than would be predicted by theory. Results are robust to a host of specification tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy K.M. Beatty & Charlotte J. Tuttle, 2015. "Expenditure Response to Increases in In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 390-404.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:97:y:2015:i:2:p:390-404.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aau097
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:97:y:2015:i:2:p:390-404.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.