IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/22198.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Measurement Error Explain a Paradox About Household Size and Food Demand? Evidence from Variation in Household Survey Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Gibson, John

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:22198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/22198
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lanjouw, Peter & Ravallion, Martin, 1995. "Poverty and Household Size," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1415-1434, November.
    3. Andrew Chesher & Christian Schluter, 2002. "Welfare Measurement and Measurement Error," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 357-378.
    4. 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 341-359, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Gardes, F. & Starzec, C., 2000. "Economies of Scale and Food Consumption : a Reappraisal of the Deaton-Paxson Paradox," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 2000.08, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    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. Berendeeva, Ekaterina & Ratnikova, Tatiana, 2016. "The Deaton–Paxson paradox in the consumption of Russian households," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 42, pages 54-74.

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.