Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 527–549 | Cite as

Equivalence scales, the cost of children and household consumption patterns in Italy



This article deals with the estimation of parametric equivalence scales for Italian households with different demographic characteristics: composition, location and number of employed members in the household. Using a sample of 43,701 observations on monthly current expenditures from 1997 to 2004 we estimate a demand system for ten goods and we tackle the problem of corner solutions for some goods adopting the Two Step estimator proposed by Shonkweiler and Yen (Am J Agric Econ 81:972–982, 1999). The consumption behavior of households is also analyzed calculating compensated, uncompensated and expenditure elasticites for each commodity. By considering households that differ in composition (number of children), geographic location (four-different macro-areas of Italy), and number of employed adults, we allow for a range of useful comparisons.


Equivalence scales Demand analysis Censoring 

JEL Classifications

D11 D12 



We thank, without implicating, Daniele Moro and Paolo Sckokai for useful comments and discussions and Steven Yen for having sent us his templates for the two-step estimator. We also thank Pier Luigi Rizzi for his invaluable help and support. All errors remain our own.


  1. Anderson, G., & Blundell, R. (1984). Consumer non-durables in the UK: A dynamic demand system. Economic Journal Conference Papers 94, 34–44.Google Scholar
  2. Baldini, M., & Toso, S. (2004). Diseguaglianza, Povertà e Politiche Pubbliche. Il Mulino: BolognaGoogle Scholar
  3. Betti, G. (2000). Quadratic Engel curves and household equivalence scales: The case of Italy 1985–1994. Statistics Research Report LSERR50, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  4. Blundell, R., & Lewbel, A. (1991). On the information content of equivalence scales. Journal of Econometrics, 50, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browning, M., & Meghir, C. (1991). The effects of male and female labor supply on commodity demand. Econometrica, 59(4), 925–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbonaro, G. (1985). Nota sulla scala di equivalenza. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Commissione di indagine sulla povertá.Google Scholar
  7. Carbonaro, G. (2004). La povertá in Italia. Stime alternative con linee di povertá differenziate territorialmente. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  8. Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1980). An almost ideal demand system. American Economic Review, 70, 312–336.Google Scholar
  9. Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1986). On measuring child cost: With applications to poor countries. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson, D., & Pendakur, K. (2006). The identification of fixed costs from consumer behaviour. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 24, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dong, D., Gould, B. W., & Kaiser, H. M. (2004). Food demand in Mexico: An application of the Amemiya-Tobin approach to the estimation of a censored system. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 1094–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engel, E. (1895). Die Lebenskosten Belgischer Arbeiter-Familien Fruher und jetzt. International Statistical Institute Bullettin, 9, 1–74.Google Scholar
  13. Golan, A., Perloff, J. M., & Shen, E. Z. (2001). Estimating a demand system with nonnegativity constraints: Mexican meat demand. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3), 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heien, D., & Wessels, C. R. (1990). Demand sytems estimation with microdata: A censored regressions approach. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 8, 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISTAT, Indagine sui Consumi delle Famiglie. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT), Roma (various years).Google Scholar
  16. Koulovatianos, C., Schroeder, C., & Schmidt, U. (2005). On the income dependence of equivalence scales. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 967–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewbel, A., & Pendakur, K. (2008). Equivalence scales. The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.). Palgrave MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marini, G., Piergallini, A., & Scaramozzino, P. (2004). Inflation bias after the Euro: Evidence from the UK and Italy. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Rome Tor Vergata.Google Scholar
  19. Moschini, G., & Rizzi, P. (1997). La struttura dei consumi delle famiglie in Italia. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 105, 449–471.Google Scholar
  20. Moschini, G., & Rizzi, P. (2007). Deriving a flexible mixed demand system: The normalized quadratic model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(4), 1034–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muellbauer, J. (1976). Communitity preferences and the representative consumer. Econometrica, 44, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy, K., & Topel, R. H. (1985). Estimation and inference in two-step econometric models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 3, 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pashardes, P. (1991). Contemporaneous and intertemporal child cost: Equivalent expenditure versus equivalent income scales. Journal of Public Economics, 45(2), 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pashardes, P. (1995). Equivalence scales in a rank-3 demand system. Journal of Public Economics, 58, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patrizii, V., & Rossi, N. (1991). Preferenze, Prezzi e Distribuzione. Il Mulino: Bologna.Google Scholar
  26. Perali, F. (1999). Stima delle scale di equivalenza utilizzando i bilanci familiari ISTAT 1985–1994. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali (anno CVII, pp. 481–541).Google Scholar
  27. Perali, F. (2006). Il Costo di Mantenimento di un Bambino. In G. Rovati (Ed.), Le Dimensioni della Povertá. Roma: Carocci Editore.Google Scholar
  28. Perali, F., & Chavas, J. (2000) Estimation of censored demand equations from large cross-section data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4), 1022–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pudney, S. (1989). Modeling individual choice. The econometrics of corners kinks and holes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Rizzi, P., & Balli, F. (2002). La domanda al consumo di beni non durevoli e servizi in Italia negli anni novanta: analisi di breve periodo con un sistema Almost Ideal a due stadi. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica n. 352/2002.Google Scholar
  31. Shonkwiler, J. S., & Yen, S. (1999). Two-step estimation of a censored system of equations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 972–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tauchmann, H. (2005). Efficiency of two-step estimators for censored systems of equations: Shonkwiler and Yen reconsidered. Applied Economics, 37(4), 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yen, S. T., Kan, K., & Su, S. J. (2002). Household demand for fats and oils: Two-step estimation of a censored demand system. Applied Economics, 14, 1799–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yen, S. T., & Lin, B. (2006). A sample selection approach to censored demand systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(3), 742–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yen, S. T., Lin, B., & Smallwood, D. (2003). Quasi- and simulated-likelihood approaches to censored demand systems: Food consumption by food stamp recipients in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agenzia Regionale Toscana per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (ARTEA)FirenzeItaly
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Siena (I)SienaItaly

Personalised recommendations