Introduction Families spend money in variety patterns. Small size family consisted of nuclear family needs less goods than large size family. Therefore, spending pattern of small family is different with the large one. This paper is aimed to find out current and past research regarding to what extent family size affect to spending pattern. Background research Prior research shows mix result. Bojer (1977) discover that a family consisted two adult and two children spent 2.5 times higher than a single adult. Likewise, Lino (1994) compares spending patterns of single mother families. The research shows that total expenditure of married couple with children was around 40% higher than single mother families. While, Lazear and Michael (1980) argue …show more content…
Working (1943) introduced model of functional form of Engel curve parametric analysis. This model easily measured the economies of household size based on food expenditure (Gibson 2002, Lancester, Ray, and Valuezuela 1999). They conclude that the larger households the smaller share on spending food of their total expenditure. The second model is introduced by Barten (1964). This model allows for substitution between food and non-food (Lancester, Ray, and Valuezuela 1999). Methodology There are several researches conducted by scholars using those two models. Barten’s Model Authors Description of study Conclusions Mok, Maclean, and Dalziel (2011) The degree of economies of scale for different goods depends upon household expenditure and household composition Validating Barten’s model in estimating the household economies of scale Deaton and Paxton (1998) Total expenditure per capita held constant, expenditure per head on food falls with the number of heads Empirical evidence is exactly opposite of the theoretical predictions Gan and Vernon (2003) study an inconsistency between the model and the data in Deaton and Paxson (1998) Empirical evidence confirms that the food share increases with household size relative to more public goods and decreases relative to more private goods, and the elasticity of the food share with respect to family size decreases as households become …show more content…
Direct economies of scale in food preparation. ii. Economies of scale in food preparation iii. Wastage iv. Collective models. v. Price elasticity of food vi. Measurement error vii. Calorie overheads. viii. Intrahousehold inequality. (Deaton &Paxson 1998, p 921-923) Paradoxical result of Deaton and Paxson research attract other scholars to challenge. Gan and Vernon (2003) is one of the scholar who give comment on Deaton and Paxson research. By using the same assumption with Barten, their study shows that food share rise with household size. Therefore, it confirms Barten’s model. Furthermore, Deaton and Paxson rebut on Gan and Vernon claim. They state that their description is not clear and does not resolve the paradox (Deaton and Paxson 2003). The researchers claim that their objective is not testing the Barten model. Conclusion Variety of spending pattern in a family can be measured based on the size of the household using Barten model or Engel model. Even though Deaton and Paxson (1998) study claim there is a paradox, the two model well established to predict that the food expenditure is positively correlated with household
For example, the more notable difference would be the amount spent on children’s education—in comparing with the same family type as mine, the family with a full-time minimum wage pays $47.89/month for their children’s education while the family with a median income pays $400/month, both at a public school. Whereas, my family type spent a more significantly amount due to the fact that both children are enrolled in a private school. This shows that family’s earning more than the median, are more likely to have their children go to a private education. Moreover, a similarity I found across all family types were the main expenses where money would be primarily dedicated to—specifically, housing, food, utilities, clothing, and having a mobile device and internet. For transportation, I noticed that the majority of family types had OPUS cards—with the exception of individuals on social assistance and full-time minimum wage having bicycles—and the family types of four with a median income, or twice the median income (including my own family type), owned up to two vehicles. This illustrates the difference in terms of costs being distributed for this category as OPUS cards cost about a tenth of what all the expenses would be in owning a car. What’s more, the amount of money set aside for “other” expenses were highly variable across the different family types, with some who could not afford to put any amount at all—such as, the single mother with 2 children on social assistance and on a full-time minimum wage—to a family of two parents and two teenage children making twice the median income who could spend $1431.54/month. Ultimately, I have learnt that for many people, despite having a minimum wage, it is very difficult for an individual to live (and survive) with
Although the two authors do not refer to each other directly in their works, both their perspectives share a common ground that no enough income make people eating less healthy. Pinsker argues that the actual barrier that stops people from eating healthy is the lack of income (129-130). He uses studies to show that poor families choose processed food because children like those tasty processed food (Pinsker 129-134). Whereas poor families cannot afford the waste if children refused to eat healthier but less tasty food parents provided (Pinsker 129-134). Cortright also suggests that income matters the most to why people do not eat healthy. He even further discusses income as the most influential limiting factor by addressing that other factors such as physical proximity to local food sources do not cause people to eat less healthy (Cortright 135-138). The two authors, in general, reach a consensus and mutually prove that income plays as the biggest limiting factor for people to have healthy
Poverty in the United States is one of many difficult problems handled today. In 2010, 15.1% of the American population was living below the poverty threshold. But, how did the government calculate the poverty rate? The United States government uses the Orshansky poverty thresholds, which uses family budgets to determine if the family is above or below the poverty threshold. The current United States poverty measure is an absolute, headcount measure using family income as its scale of resources. However, many would agree that the poverty measure is flawed and that the poverty measure overstates how many people are really in poverty. This is a problem because resources government programs uses to help the poor can unevenly distribute. Therefore, I would like to propose a different poverty measure. In this paper, I would like to argue for a poverty intensity measure that is relative, with earnings capacity as the scale of resources and counts the household as the unit of analysis. First, I will discuss more about the flawed U.S. poverty measure; second, I will explain the four components necessary for poverty measures; third, I will make my proposal against the current measure and conclude about the two poverty measures.
The pilot study I conducted at Highpoint Shopping Centre allowed me to observe how food choices were made amongst different people. There are many factors that influence food choices. Therefore I conducted this observation to develop into food choices. Some factors involved gender differences, this effected the food choice and the process of eating, how the effect of age plays part in choosing food, along with which cultures foods were eaten most; Chinese, Turkish, or Italian. I also observed whether culture had an effect on food choices? What these people were wearing? How long it took for them to decide on what they were going to eat? Does the time of the day and the days of the week have an effect on the selection and amount of food eaten? And how the food is eaten? Children and how their food selection is analysed?
Research proves that low-income families will shop wherever the food prices are lower, and generally cannot afford to pay for healthful foods. In comparison to the residents of higher income communities, low-income households normally have diets that are higher in meat and processed foods and often have low intakes of fruits and vegetables. Research suggests that people with low socioeconomic status spend up to 37% more on food. This is because of smaller weekly food budgets in addition to poorly stocked stores. Those with lower income are more likely to spend money on inexpensive fats and sugars versus fresh fruits and vegetables that are more costly on a per calorie basis. Healthy foods like whole grain products are more expensive than high calorie junk foods.
The lack of an intersection between the food production (people fed) and population is present because of the country’s aforementioned high rates of undernourishment. The lower number of “people fed” on our graph coincides with statistics revealing that 25.2% of Nepal’s population is currently living below the poverty line. Even though 68% of the country’s population is actively involved in agriculture, their food production still does not meet the needs of their growing population, and for this reason, the models used accurately depict the data at hand. This juxtaposition of the exponential and linear models displays the recent situation of food insecurity in Nepal: the population is continuing to grow at an exponential rate, and the rate of agricultural production has no way to sustain this increase in population. This explains why the trend lines are growing further apart and a point of intersection (where food production surpasses the needs of the population) does not seem likely to occur given the projected values.
Stuffed and Starved brings to light the uneven hourglass shape that exists within our world’s food system, and describes what factors contribute to these discrepancies. It begins with the decisions farmers are forced to make on the farm, and ends with the decisions the consumers are able to make at the grocery stores. The purpose of Stuffed and Starved was to describe what factors attribute to the hourglass shape of the food system. Author Raj Patel points out who is profiting and who is suffering in this system, and gives insight as to how the system may be improved.
there are "more than 800 million people in" the world who "don 't have enough to eat" (Dimick
There are many problems confronting our global food system. One of them is that the food is not distributed fairly or evenly in the world. According “The Last Bite Is The World’s Food System Collapsing?” by Bee Wilson, “we are producing more food—more grain, more meat, more fruits and vegetables—than ever before, more cheaply than ever before” (Wilson, 2008). Here we are, producing more and more affordable food. However, the World Bank recently announced that thirty-three countries are still famine and hungers as the food price are climbing. Wilson stated, “despite the current food crisis, last year’s worldwide grain harvest was colossal, five per cent above the previous year’s” (Wilson, 2008). This statement support that the food is not distributed evenly. The food production actually increased but people are still in hunger and malnutrition. If the food were evenly distributed, this famine problem would’ve been not a problem. Wilson added, “the food economy has created a system in w...
However, with the changes in their diet additional money is spent on food for their meals. For example,
It is obvious that the population has grown rapidly in the last 40 years, and this change has started to deny basic human needs to more than two billion of these people (Ehlrich and Ehlrich 557). Anywhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year from starvation because Earth has surpassed its food growing limits (Kuo 26) Global agriculture cannot possibly produce enough food for seven billion people to eat (Kuo 26). In addition, grain outputs per person have fallen an average of .6 percent every year since 1986 (Ehlrich and Ehlrich 557). This is because of the lack of new farmland. Too many people are taking up the farmable land for residential and industrial areas. If rapid population progression continues to occur, there is little hope for reestablishing growth in food output (Cover 445; Ehlrich and Ehlrich 558).
According to Diaz (2011) income and food cost affect the overall diet of the U.S adult population. Primarily, studies show that issues such as the socioeconomic status and food prices greatly influence people’s diet, determining their food choices. People from higher social classes value importance of nutrition because they have a variety of diet options. For instance, Drewnowski and Darmon (2011) suggest that obesity in the U.S is a socioeconomic issue, which is directly related to limited economic and social resources. This essay explains how income and food cost affect our diet choices. People from higher social classes consume healthier foods compared to people from lower social classes because the overall food choices are influenced by the price of products and the person's socioeconomic position. So, tell me does income and food cost really affect our diet?
measure the cost of attaining a given level of economic well-being. In practice, statisticians take a ‘basket of goods’, which represents the consumption patterns of the ‘average consumer’, and measure how the cost of this fixed basket changes over time.
1. Disposable Income: There is increase in disposable income, observed in both rural and urban consumers, which is giving opportunity to many rural consumers to shift from traditional unorganized unbranded products to branded FMCG products and urban fraternity to splurge on value added and lifestyle products. The increasing salaries, along with rising trend of perks in the corporate sector at regular intervals, have increased people’s spending power. As per some research, there is a high correlation between Disposable per capita and HPC per capita.
The logical foundation of this approach is found to be the issue in the distribution of income provided in terms of demand for factors of production.