Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:43:56.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equivalence scales based on Subjective Income Evaluations: Are children really cheap?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Karel Van den Bosch
Karel Van den Bosch*
Affiliation:
Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp (UFSIA)
Get access

Summary

Answers of sample survey respondents to questions like the following one: “In the circumstances of your household, what income would you regard as the minimum (or good/bad/sufficient, etc.) for your household?” can be used to estimate equivalence scales. It is sometimes claimed that this is a simple and cheap method to obtain “true” equivalence scales. Typically, these scales are much flatter than those derived from consumption behaviour data, or those incorporated in official poverty lines. A number of possible reasons have been advanced for this result. Yet, using subjective data does not necessarily result in a flat equivalence scale. Equivalence scales can also be estimated from answers to direct survey questions on how satisfied the respondent is with his or her household income, and these scales are often quite steep. In this paper, an application of both methods is reported. A number of possible reasons for the discrepancy are explored. In particular, the effects of a wide range of exogenous variables are examined. Data are from the 1985 and 1988 waves of the Belgian Socio-Economic Panel, a household income survey. The conclusion is that the discrepancy between the equivalence scales persists, even when controlling for a large number of possibly intervening factors.

Résumé

Résumé

Les réponses, lors de sondage, à des questions telles que: ‘Dans le cadre de votre ménage, quel revenu considérez-vous comme minimal (ou, bien/mauvais/suffisant, etc.) pour votre ménage?’ peuvent être utilisées pour estimer des échelles d’équivalence. Il est parfois affirmé que cette méthode, simple et bon-marché, permet d’obtenir une ‘véritable’ échelle d’équivalence. Typiquement, ces échelles sont beaucoup plus plates que celles découlant de l’analyse de données sur les comportements de consommation, ou celles incorporées dans les lignes officielles de pauvreté. Un nombre de raisons possibles ont été proposées pour expliquer ce résultat. Cependant, l’utilisation de données subjectives n’engendre pas nécessairement des échelles d’équivalence plates. Les échelless d’équivalence peuvent aussi être estimées sur base des réponses à la question ‘êtes-vous satisfait du revenu de votre ménage?’. Ces échelles sont souvent assez raides. Dans ce papier, une application des deux méthodes est proposée. Un nombre de raisons possibles expliquant les différences sont explorées. En particulier, les effets d’une gamme étendue de variables exogènes sont examinées. Les données proviennent du Panel socio-économique belge de 1985 à 1988. La conclusion est que le décalage entre les échelles d’équivalence persiste, même en contrôlant un nombre important de facteurs explicatifs.

Keywords

D63I32D63I32
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , 1996 , pp. 203 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1996 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

(*)

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Seventh Annual Conference of the European Society for Population Economics (ESPE-VII), Budapest, June 3-5, 1993. The author thanks two referees for their useful comments.

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, J. and Nelson, F. [1984], Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–045, Beverly Hills and London, Sage.Google Scholar
Andrews, F. and Withey, S. [1976], Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans perception of life quality, New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Antonides, G., Kapteyn, A. and Wansbeek, T. [1980], Reliability and Validity Assessment of Ten Methods for the Measurement of Individual Welfare Functions of Income, no place.Google Scholar
Bradbury, B. [1989], Family size equivalence scales and survey evaluations of income and well-being, Journal of Social Policy, 18(3), pp. 383–408.Google Scholar
Buhmann, B., Rainwater, L., Schmaus, G. and Smeeding, T. [1988], Equivalence Scales, well-being, inequality, and poverty: sensitivity estimates across ten countries using the Luxembourg Income Study [LIS] database, The Review of Income and Wealth, 34(2), pp. 115–142.Google Scholar
Danziger, S., Van Der Gaag, J., Taussig, M., and Smolensky, E. [1984], The direct measurement of welfare levels: How much does it cost to make ends meet? Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), pp. 500–504.Google Scholar
Dubnoff, S., Vaughan, D., and Lancaster, C. [1981], Income satisfaction measures in equivalence scale applications, Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association, pp. 348–352.Google Scholar
Dubnoff, S., Vaughan, D., and Lancaster, C. [1981], Income satisfaction measures in equivalence scale applications, Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association, pp. 348–352.Google Scholar
Goedhart, Th., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, A. and Van Praag, B. [1977], The poverty line, concept and measurement, The Journal of Human Resources, 12(4), pp. 503–520.Google Scholar
Hagenaars, A. [1985], The Perception of Poverty, Academic Thesis, University of Leyden. Published 1986, Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. [1979], Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrics, 47(8), pp. 153–161 Google Scholar
Judge, G., Griffiths, W., Carter Hill, R. Lütkepohl, H. and Lee, T.-C. [1985], The Theory and Practice of Econometrics [2nd edition], New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A. and Van Praag, B. [1976], A new approach to the construction of family equivalence scales, European Economic Review, 7(2), pp. 313–335.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A., Kooreman, P. and Willemse, R., [1988], Some methodological issues in the implementation of subjective poverty definitions, The Journal of Human Resources, 23(2), pp. 222–242.Google Scholar
Melenberg, B. [1992], Micro-econometric Models of Consumer Behavior and Welfare, Academic Thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Pollar, R. and Wales, T. [1979], Welfare comparisons and equivalence scales, American Economic Review, 69(2), pp. 216–221.Google Scholar
Poulin, S. [1988], An Application of Analytic Techniques to Canadian Income Satisfaction Data, Ottawa, Statistics Canada, Labour and Household Surveys Analysis Division, Staff Reports.Google Scholar
Seidl, C. [1994], How sensible is the Leyden individual welfare function of income?, European Economic Review, 38(8), pp. 1633–1659.Google Scholar
Tummers, M. [1992], The estimation of the quantiles in the IEQ regression, European Economic Review, 36(6), pp. 1305–1310.Google Scholar
Tummers, M. [1994], The effect of systematic misperception of income on the subjective poverty line, in Blundell, R., Preston, I. and Walker, I. (eds.), The Measurement of Household Welfare, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 265–274.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, K. and Cantillon, B. [1992], Welfare comparisons between one-earner and two-earner households: An application of the income evaluation method for Belgium, in De Jong Gierveld, J. and Beets, G. (eds.), Population and Family in the Low Countries, Amsterdam and Lisse, Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 121–140.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, K., Callan, T., Estivill, J., Hausman, P., Jeandidier, B., Muffels, R. and Yfantopoulos, J. [1993], A comparison of poverty in seven european countries and regions, using subjective and relative measures, Journal of Population Economics, 6(3), pp. 235–259.Google Scholar
Van Herwaarden, F. and Kapteyn, A. [1981], Empirical comparison of the shape of welfare functions, European Economic Review, 15(3), pp. 261–286.Google Scholar
Van de Stadt, H., Kapteyn, A. and Van De Geer, S. [1985], The relativity of utility: Evidence from panel data, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(2), pp. 179–187.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. [1971], The welfare function of income in Belgium: An empirical investigation, European Economic Review, 2(3), pp. 337–369.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. [1991], Ordinal and cardinal utility. An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept, Journal of Econometrics, 50(1), pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. [1993], The Relativity of the Welfare Concept, in Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (eds.), The Quality of Life, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. and Kapteyn, A. [1994], How sensible is the Leyden individual welfare function of income? A Reply, European Economic Review, 38(9), pp. 1817–1825.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. and Van Der Sar, N. [1988], Household cost functions and equivalence scales, Journal of Human Resources, 23(2), pp. 193–210.Google Scholar
Vaughan, D. [1984], Using subjective assessments of income to estimate family equivalence scales: A report on work in progress, Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, pp. 496–501.Google Scholar
Wansbeek, T. and Kapteyn, A. [1983], Tackling hard questions by means of soft methods: The use of individual welfare functions in socio-economic policy, Kyklos, 36(2), pp. 249–269.Google Scholar