Advertisement

Entropy-Based Consumption Diversity—The Case of India

  • Manisha ChakrabartyEmail author
  • Jayanta Mandi
Chapter

Abstract

In recent years, there has been growing research in analysing the spending diversification of households in applied demand analysis using disaggregated household-level data. Taking cue from Engel’s (Die Lebenskosten Belgischer Arbeiter Familien frfther und jetzt, Bulletin de l’institut international de statistique, tome IX, premiere livraison, Rome, 1895) findings that large share of income is spent on basic goods such as food for lower-income decile, the applied demand analysts also observed that with increasing income, there is an increase in spending on other non-food commodities, implying a hierarchical structure of consumption pattern. Evidences also supported positive correlation between household income and the dispersion of household spending both at cross-country-level analysis and at household-level analysis. These findings justify the use of consumption-based measures such as food share (Anand and Harris in Am Econ Rev 84:226–231, 1994) and consumption diversity (Clements et al. in Empirical Econ 31:1–30, 2006; Chai et al. in J Econ Surv 29:423–440, 2014) as indicators of household welfare. In this paper, we attempt to examine the stylized facts of behavioural heterogeneity across disaggregated commodity groups by employing entropy-based Theil’s measure. Using National Sample Survey household expenditure data of urban sector of four major states of India for the year 2011–2012, we show the extent to which income (measured through monthly per capita expenditure and thereby controlling household size) and other demographic characteristics such as number of children explain the variation in consumption diversity. We also capture commodity group-wise variations for explaining consumption diversity within commodity group by considering not only inherent characteristics of commodity groups such as income elasticity as control variables but also as random coefficient models varying randomly across commodity groups. The incorporation of between-commodity heterogeneity via random coefficient model is our contribution in this literature on consumption heterogeneity. The random coefficient models establish significant heterogeneity across commodity groups, mainly through intercept change, but not so much in income and demographic factors’ effect.

Keywords

Theil’s entropy measure Random coefficient model Consumption diversity 

References

  1. Allen, R. G. D., & Bowley, A. L. (1935). Family expenditure: A study of its variation. Studies in statistics and scientific method, 2. London, PS King.Google Scholar
  2. Anand, S., & Harris, C. (1994). Choosing a welfare indicator. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 226–231 (Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association).Google Scholar
  3. Banks, J., Blundell, R., & Lewbel, A. (1997). Quadratic Engel curves and consumer demand. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4), 527–539.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, M. K. (1941). Wheat studies of the Food Research Institute (Vols. 12 and 18). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. Blacklow, P., Cooper, R., Ham, R., & Mclaren, K. (2006). A regular demand system with commodity-specific demographic effects. University of Tasmania, Department of Economics and Finance, Working Papers, 2006–06.Google Scholar
  6. Canova, L., Rattazzi, A. M. M., & Webley, P. (2005). The hierarchical structure of saving motives. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chai, A., & Moneta, A. (2012). Back to Engel? Some evidence for the hierarchy of needs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 22(4), 649–676.Google Scholar
  8. Chai, A., Kiedaisch, C., & Rohde, N. (2017). The saturation of spending diversity and the truth about Mr Brown and Mrs Jones. Griffith Business School Discussion paper series. 2017–01.Google Scholar
  9. Chai, A., Rohde, N., & Silber, J. (2014). Measuring the diversity of household spending patterns. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chattopadhyay, N., Majumder, A., & Coondoo, D. (2009). Demand threshold, zero expenditure and hierarchical model of consumer demand. Metroeconomica, 60(1), 91–118.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., & Lau, L. J. (1975). Transcendental logarithmic utility functions. The American Economic Review, 65(3), 367–383.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, K. W., & Chen, D. (1996). Fundamental similarities in consumer behaviour. Applied Economics, 28(6), 747–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clements, K., Yanrui, W., & Zhang, J. L. (2006). Comparing international consumption patterns. Empirical Economics, 31(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conceição, P., & Ferreira, P. (2000). The young person’s guide to the Theil index: Suggesting intuitive interpretations and exploring analytical applications. UTIP working paper.Google Scholar
  15. Cranfield, J. A. L., Eales, J. S., Hertel, T. W., & Preckel, P. V. (2003). Model selection when estimating and predicting consumer demands using international cross section data. Empirical Economics, 28(2), 353–364.Google Scholar
  16. Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1980). An almost ideal demand system. The American Economic Review, 70(3), 312–326. JSTOR.Google Scholar
  17. Drescher, L., Thiele, S., & Weiss, C. R. (2008). The taste for variety: A hedonic analysis. Economics Letters, 101(1), 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel, E. (1857). Die Productions-Und Consumtionsverhältnisse Des Königreichs Sachsen. Zeitschrift Des Statistischen Bureaus Des KöniglichSächsischenMinisteriums Des Innern, 8: 1–54.Google Scholar
  19. Engel, E. (1895). Die Lebenskosten Belgischer Arbeiter Familien frfther und jetzt, Bulletin de l’institut international de statistique, tome IX, premiere livraison, Rome.Google Scholar
  20. Falkinger, J., & Zweimüller, J. (1996). The cross-country engel curve for product diversification. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 7(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flurry, L. A. (2007). Childrens influence in family decision-making: Examining the impact of the changing American family. Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houthakker, H. S. (1957). An international comparison of household expenditure patterns, commemorating the centenary of Engel’s law. Econometrica, 25(4), 532–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howe, H., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. J. (1979). Theory and time series estimation of the quadratic expenditure system. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1231–1247.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, L. F. (1984). Hierarchic demand and the Engel curve for variety. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(1), 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jorgenson, D., Lau, L. J., Stoker, T. M., Basmann, R. L., & Rhodes, G. (1982). The transcendental logarithmic model of aggregate consumer behavior. Advances in Econometrics. JAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lancaster, G., & Ray, R. (1998). Comparison of alternative models of household equivalence scales: The Australian evidence on unit record data. Economic Record, 74(224), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewbel, A. (1991). The rank of demand systems: Theory and nonparametric estimation. Econometrica, 59(3), 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewbel, A., & Pendakur. K. (2008). Estimation of collective household models with Engel curves. Journal of Econometrics, 147(2), 350–358.Google Scholar
  30. Maddala, G., et al. (1971). The use of variance components models in pooling cross section and time series data. Econometrica, 39(2), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Majumder, A. (1992). Measuring income responses: A log-quadratic demand model for consumers in India. Empirical Economics, 17(2), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morseth, M. S., Grewal, N., Kaase, I., Hatloy, A., Barikmo, I., & Henjum, S. (2017). Dietary diversity is related to socioeconomic status among adult Saharawi refugees living in Algeria. BMC Public Health, 17.Google Scholar
  33. Muellbauer, J. (1976). Community preferences and the representative consumer. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. JSTOR, 979–999.Google Scholar
  34. Pasinetti, L. L. (1981). Structural change and economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Prais, S. J. (1952). Non-linear estimates of the Engel Curves. The Review of Economic Studies, 20(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prais, S. J., & Houthakker, H. S. (1955). The analysis of family budgets (Vol. 4). CUP Archive.Google Scholar
  37. Ray, R. (1986). Demographic variables and equivalence scales in a flexible demand system: The case of AIDS. Applied Economics, 18(3), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaw, D., & Newholm, T. (2002). Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychology and Marketing, 19(2), 167–185.Google Scholar
  39. Shorrocks, A. F. (1988). Aggregation issues in inequality measurement. In Measurement in economics (pp. 429–451). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone, R. (1954). Linear expenditure systems and demand analysis: An application to the pattern of British demand. The Economic Journal, 64(255), 511–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sudarshan, R., & Mishra, N. (1999). Gender and tobacco consumption in India. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 5(1), 84–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Subramanian, S. V., Nandy, S., Kelly, M., Gordon, D., & Smith, G. D. (2004). Patterns and distribution of tobacco consumption in India: Cross sectional multilevel evidence from the 1998–9 national family health survey. Bmj, 328(7443), 801–806.Google Scholar
  43. Theil, H. (1967). Economics and information theory. Technical report.Google Scholar
  44. Theil, H., & Finke, R. (1983). The consumer’s demand for diversity. European Economic Review, 23(3), 395–400.Google Scholar
  45. Thiele, S., & Weiss, C. (2003). Consumer demand for food diversity: Evidence for Germany. Food Policy, 28(2), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas, D., & Strauss, J. (1997). Health and wages: Evidence on men and women in urban Brazil. Journal of Econometrics, 77(1), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Witt, U. (2017). The evolution of consumption and its welfare effects. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(2), 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Working, H. (1943). Statistical laws of family expenditure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 38(221), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Management CalcuttaKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Data ScienceVrije University BrusselsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations