IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bls/wpaper/462.html

Understanding the Relationship: CE Survey and PCE

Author

Listed:
  • William D. Passero
  • Thesia I. Garner
  • Clinton McCully

Abstract

For the United States, there are currently two federal series of data that refer to household expenditures. One is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), and the other is produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal consumption expenditures (PCE). Weights for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) are based on CE data. However, over the years, suggestions have been made to use PCE rather than the CE as the source of weights for the CPI. Much research had been conducted to reconcile differences in scope and definitions in the CE and PCE. Included in this paper is a review of these differences along with aggregate estimates that result when one accounts for the differences. Such an exercise is important; however, to compare trends in CE and PCE over time, a concordance of comparable items in both the CE and PCE is desirable. Independently, the BLS divisions responsible for the CE and CPI have produced concordances of the CE to PCE data; staff members at BEA have also produced their own concordances. These three independent exercises have resulted in three different concordances. In this paper, a new joint concordance, developed by staff in the BEA and BLS, is presented. Using this concordance, similarities and differences in the CE and PCE are highlighted along with trends in ratios of aggregate CE and PCE over the 1992 to 2010 time period. Aggregate expenditures and ratios of CE to PCE are produced for durables, non-durables, and services Results suggest that non-durables are most alike for the CE and PCE with about 93 percent of total non-durable expenditures identified as comparable within the CE and within the PCE. Regarding trends over time and focusing on comparable goods and services only, CE to PCE ratios have steadily decreased. For total comparable goods and services, CE to PCE ratios decreased from 84 percent for 1992 to 74 percent for 2010. The greatest decline in CE to PCE ratios is for durables, with a decrease of 24 percentage points. Ratios for comparable services dropped the least, with a percentage decrease of 10 percentage points.

Suggested Citation

  • William D. Passero & Thesia I. Garner & Clinton McCully, 2013. "Understanding the Relationship: CE Survey and PCE," Economic Working Papers 462, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bls:wpaper:462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-papers/2013/pdf/ec130020.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Aliocha Accardo & Sylvérie Herbert & Cristina Jude & Adrian Penalver, 2023. "Measuring and Comparing Consumption Inequality between France and the United States," Working papers 904, Banque de France.
    3. Bardóczy, Bence & Savoia, Ettore & Vel´asquez-Giraldo, Mateo, 2026. "HANK Comes of Age: Monetary Policy with Heterogeneous Overlapping Generations," Working Paper Series 461, Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden).
    4. James Banks & Richard Blundell & Peter Levell & James P. Smith, 2015. "Life-Cycle Consumption Patterns at Older Ages in the US and the UK Can Medical Expenditures Explain the Difference?," Working Papers WR-1100, RAND Corporation.
    5. Arnold Katz, 2017. "Imputing Rents to Owner-Occupied Housing by Directly Modelling Their Distribution," BEA Working Papers 0144, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    6. Fernando Alexandre & Pedro Bação & Miguel Portela, 2020. "Is the basic life-cycle theory of consumption becoming more relevant? Evidence from Portugal," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 93-116, March.
    7. Peter Ganong & Pascal Noel, 2019. "Consumer Spending during Unemployment: Positive and Normative Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2383-2424, July.
    8. Gordon, Hal & Burtraw, Dallas & Williams, Roberton, 2015. "A Microsimulation Model of the Distributional Impacts of Climate Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-40, Resources for the Future.
    9. William Passero & Thesia I. Garner & Clinton McCully, 2014. "Understanding the Relationship: CE Survey and PCE," NBER Chapters, in: Improving the Measurement of Consumer Expenditures, pages 181-203, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Scott Schuh, 2017. "Measuring consumer expenditures with payment diaries," Working Papers 17-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    11. Peter Ganong & Pascal J. Noel, 2020. "Why Do Borrowers Default on Mortgages? A New Method For Causal Attribution," Working Papers 2020-100, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.

    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:bls:wpaper:462. 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: Jennifer Cassidy-Gilbert The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Jennifer Cassidy-Gilbert to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/blsgvus.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.