Does Measurement Error Explain a Paradox About Household Size and Food Demand? Evidence from Variation in Household Survey Methods
Several recent papers report a puzzling pattern of food demand falling as household size rises at constant per capita expenditure, especially in poorer countries. This pattern is contrary to a widely used model of scale economics. This paper exploits within-country differences in household survey methods and interviewer practices to provide a measurement error interpretation of this puzzle. A comparison of household surveys in Cambodia and Indonesia with the results from Monte Carlo experiments suggest that food expenditure estimates from shorter, less detailed recall surveys have measurement errors that are correlated with household size. These correlated measurement errors contribute to the negative effect of household size on food demand and cause upward bias in Engel estimates of household scale economies.
|Date of creation:||2003|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Deaton, A. & Paxson, C., 1997.
"Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food,"
178, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Development Studies.
- 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.
- 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.
- Lanjouw, Peter & Ravallion, Martin & DEC, 1994.
"Poverty and household size,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
1332, The World Bank.
- Jere Behrman & Mark Rosenzweig & Andrew D. Foster, .
"The Dynamics of Agricultural Production and the Calorie-Income Relationship: Evidence from Pakistan,"
_069, University of Pennsylvania.
- Behrman, Jere R. & Foster, Andrew D. & Rosenzweig, Mark R., 1997. "The dynamics of agricultural production and the calorie-income relationship: Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 187-207, March.
- Andrew Chesher & Christian Schluter, 2001.
"Welfare measurement and measurement error,"
CeMMAP working papers
CWP03/01, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Andrew Chesher & Christian Schluter, 2002. "Welfare Measurement and Measurement Error," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 357-378.
- Chesher, Andrew & Schluter, Christian, 2002. "Welfare Measurement and Measurement Error," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 357-78, April.
- Bound, John & Brown, Charles & Mathiowetz, Nancy, 2001. "Measurement error in survey data," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 59, pages 3705-3843 Elsevier.
- Gardes, F. & Starzec, C., 2000. "Economies of Scale and Food Consumption : a Reappraisal of the Deaton-Paxson Paradox," Papiers d'Economie MathÃ©matique et Applications 2000.08, UniversitÃ© PanthÃ©on-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
- 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.
- John Gibson, 2002.
"Why Does the Engel Method Work? Food Demand, Economies of Size and Household Survey Methods,"
Working Papers in Economics
02/02, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
- 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 341-59, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:22198. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.