Deflation by Expenditure Components: A Harmless Adjustment?
Nicola Amendola
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Giulia Mancini
Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari
Correspondence to: Giulia Mancini, Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari, Via Muroni 25, 07100 Sassari, Italy ([email protected]).
Search for more papers by this authorGiovanni Vecchi
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
Search for more papers by this authorNicola Amendola
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Giulia Mancini
Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari
Correspondence to: Giulia Mancini, Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari, Via Muroni 25, 07100 Sassari, Italy ([email protected]).
Search for more papers by this authorGiovanni Vecchi
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
We investigate the effect that seemingly minor features of the implementation of cost-of-living adjustments have on the distribution of household expenditures, by developing an analytical framework that is consistent with standard consumer theory, and mindful of data limitations faced by practitioners. The main result is at odds with common sense: even when multiple price indices are available (e.g., a food Consumer Price Index and a non-food one), it turns out that using a single price index (e.g., the total Consumer Price Index), to adjust the consumption aggregate is recommended. The practice of adjusting subcomponents of consumption separately (food with a food index and nonfood with a nonfood index) can lead to a systematic bias in the welfare measure, and consequently in poverty and inequality measures. Using Iran's 2019 Household Expenditures and Income Survey, we find that the bias manifests as a systematic underestimation of urban poverty and overestimation of rural poverty.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| roiw12685-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxWord 2007 document , 271.3 KB |
Data S1. Supporting information. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Balassa, B. (1964). The purchasing power doctrine: A reappraisal. Journal of Political Economy, 72, 584–596.
- Bartholomew, D. J. (1973). Stochastic models for social processes ( 2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
- Blackorby, C., & Donaldson, D. (1985). Consumers' surpluses and consistent cost–benefit tests. Social Choice and Welfare, 1, 251–262.
- Blackorby, C., & Donaldson, D. (1987). Welfare ratios and distributionally sensitive cost benefit analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 34(3), 265–290.
- Blackorby, C., & Donaldson, D. (1988). Money metric utility: A harmless normalization? Journal of Economic Theory, 46(1), 120–129.
- Ceriani, L., Olivieri, S., & Ranzani, M. (2022). Housing, imputed rent, and household welfare. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 21, 131–168.
- Chakrabarty, M., Majumder, A., & Ray, R. (2018). A framework for the simultaneous measurement of spatial variation and temporal movement in prices in a heterogeneous country: The dynamic household regional product dummy model. Review of Income and Wealth, 64(3), 703–730.
- Chen, X., Mungai, R., Nakamura, S., Pearson, T., Wambile, A. E., & Yoshida, N. (2020). How useful is CPI Price data for spatial price adjustment in poverty measurement? A case from Ghana. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 9388.
- Cheung, Y.-W., & Fuji, E. (2014). The Penn effect within a country: Evidence from Japan. Oxford Economic Papers, 66(4), 1070–1089.
- Ciccone, A., & Hall, R. E. (1996). Productivity and the density of economic activity. The American Economic Review, 86(1), 54–70.
- Datt, G., & Ravallion, M. (1992). Growth and redistribution components of changes in poverty measures: A decomposition with applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s. Journal of Development Economics, 38(2), 275–295.
- Deaton, A., & Dupriez, O. (2011). Spatial price differences within large countries. Princeton University Working Paper no. 1321.
- Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and consumer behavior. Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511805653 Google Scholar
- Deaton, A., & Zaidi, S. (2002). Guidelines for constructing consumption aggregates for welfare analysis. LSMS Working Paper no. 135.
- Diewert, W. E. (1983). The theory of the cost of living index and the measurement of welfare change. In W. E. Diewert & C. Montmarquette (Eds.), Price Level Measurement (pp. 163–233). Statistics Canada reprinted as pp. 79–147 in Price level measurement, W. E. Diewert (ed.), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1990.
- Ferreira, F. H. G. (2012). Distributions in motion. Economic growth, inequality and poverty dynamics. In P. N. Jefferson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the economics of poverty (pp. 427–462). Oxford University Press, ch. 13.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195393781.013.0014 Google Scholar
- Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52(3), 761–766.
- Gaddis, I. (2016). Prices for poverty analysis in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 7652.
- Gibson, J., & Kim, B. (2013). Quality, quantity, and nutritional impacts of rice price changes in Vietnam. World Development, 43, 329–340.
- Gibson, J., & Kim, B. (2015). Hicksian Separability does not hold over space: Implications for the design of household surveys and price questionnaires. Journal of Development Economics, 114, 34–40.
- Gibson, J., & Kim, B. (2019). Quality, quantity, and spatial variation of price: Back to the bog. Journal of Development Economics, 137, 66–77.
- Hill, R. J. (2006). Superlative index numbers: Not all of them are super. Journal of Econometrics, 130(1), 25–43.
- Jolliffe, D. (2006). Poverty, prices, and place: How sensitive is the spatial distribution of poverty to cost-of-living adjustments? Economic Inquiry, 44(2), 296–310.
- Konüs, A. A. (1939). The problem of the true index of the cost of living. (1924 trans.). Econometrica, 7(1), 10–29.
10.2307/1906997 Google Scholar
- Mancini, G., & Vecchi, G. (2022). On the construction of the consumption aggregate for inequality and poverty analysis. World Bank.
- McKelvey, C. (2011). Price, unit value, and quality demanded. Journal of Development Economics, 95(2), 157–169.
- McKenzie, L. (1957). Demand theory without a utility index. Review of Economic Studies, 24(3), 185–189.
- Prais, S. J. (1955). Measuring social mobility. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 118(1), 56–66.
- Ravallion, M. (1994). Poverty comparisons. Routledge.
- Ravallion, M. (2016). The economics of poverty. History, measurement and policy. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212766.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Ravallion, M., & Chen, S. (2003). Measuring pro-poor growth. Economics Letters, 78(1), 93–99.
- Ravallion, M., & Van De Walle, D. (1991). Urban–rural cost-of-living differentials in a developing economy. Journal of Urban Economics, 29(1), 113–127.
- Ray, R. (2018). Household behaviour, prices, and welfare: A collection of essays including selected empirical studies. Springer.
10.1007/978-981-13-1930-3 Google Scholar
- Samuelson, P. A. (1964). Theoretical notes on trade problems. Review of Economics and Statistics, 46, 145–154.
- Samuelson, P. A. (1974). Complementarity: An essay on the 40th anniversary of the Hicks-Allen revolution in demand theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 12(4), 1255–1289.
- Shorrocks, A. F. (1978). The measurement of mobility. Econometrica, 46(5), 1013–1024.
