Food Consumption in Argentina: The Deaton-Paxson Puzzle Beyond Mean Effects

Lucía Echeverría; Jose Alberto Molina

doi:10.1515/bejeap-2022-0097

Published by De Gruyter March 27, 2023

Food Consumption in Argentina: The Deaton-Paxson Puzzle Beyond Mean Effects

Lucía Echeverría and Jose Alberto Molina

From the journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2022-0097

Showing a limited preview of this publication:

Abstract

Deaton, A., and C. Paxson (1998. “Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food.” Journal of Political Economy 106 (5): 897–930. doi: 10.1086/250035) found the opposite to what theory predicts: food share declines with household size, keeping household per capita expenditure constant. This paper aims to explore the relationship between food demand and household size beyond the conditional mean of food consumption for Argentina using a quantile regression technique. Because standard analysis focuses on the average effects, the existence of the paradox at the lower and upper ends of the conditional food share distribution remains unknown. We find negative and significant effects of household size on food share at the upper tail of the conditional food share distribution, but we find no evidence of the puzzle for households with relatively lower food share that are reasonably richer. Results show the importance of accounting for distributional effects to obtain a complete understanding of food consumption behavior and sheds light on the crucial role of economies of scale in poor households.

Keywords: Engel law; economies of scale; food consumption; quantile regression

JEL Classification: D11; D12

Corresponding author: Lucia Echeverria, CONICET and University of Mar del Plata, Funes 3250, Mar del Plata, 7600, Buenos Aires, Argentina, E-mail: lecheverria@mdp.edu.ar

Research funding: None.
Competing interests: None.
Consent to participate: Yes.
Consent to publish: Yes.
Availability of data and materials: No.

Appendix A

Table A.1:

Full set of estimates of Table 2.

	IV	IV
Log of per capita expenditure	−0.110***	−0.448***
	(0.004)	(0.088)
Log of per capita exp. squared	–	0.019***
	–	(0.005)
Log of family size	−0.033***	−0.032***
	(0.004)	(0.004)
Ratio of males 0–5 to household size	−0.063***	−0.063***
	(0.015)	(0.015)
Ratio of females 0–5 to household size	−0.073***	−0.073***
	(0.015)	(0.015)
Ratio of males 6–11 to household size	−0.037***	−0.040***
	(0.012)	(0.012)
Ratio of females 6–11 to household size	−0.039***	−0.042***
	(0.012)	(0.013)
Ratio of males 12–17 to household size	−0.017	−0.019
	(0.014)	(0.014)
Ratio of females 12–17 to household size	−0.020	−0.021
	(0.014)	(0.014)
Ratio of females 18–64 to household size	−0.032***	−0.030***
	(0.006)	(0.006)
Ratio of males +65 to household size	−0.010	−0.009
	(0.007)	(0.007)
Ratio of females +65 to household size	−0.036***	−0.035***
	(0.007)	(0.007)
Pampeana region	−0.024***	−0.021***
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Northeast region	0.017***	0.020***
	(0.004)	(0.004)
Northwest region	−0.014***	−0.014***
	(0.005)	(0.005)
Cuyo region	−0.032***	−0.029***
	(0.005)	(0.005)
Patagonia region	−0.044***	−0.042***
	(0.004)	(0.004)
Trimester 2	−0.000	−0.000
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Trimester 3	−0.000	−0.000
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Trimester 4	0.012***	0.012***
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Age of the household head	0.001***	0.001***
	(0.000)	(0.000)
Gender of the household head	0.000	−0.000
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Number of working adults	0.004	0.003
	(0.005)	(0.005)
If the head has elementary educ.	0.013***	0.014***
	(0.004)	(0.004)
If the head has secondary educ.	0.001	0.003
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Constant	1.353***	2.840***
	(0.039)	(0.393)
R-squared	0.168	0.156
N	14,534

Dependent variable: food share. Estimations for the full sample of households. We instrument the log of per capita expenditure with the log of per capita income, following Deaton and Paxson (1998), and the log of per capita expenditure squared with log of per capita income squared. Standard errors in parenthesis. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Table A.2:

Full set of estimates of Table 3.

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5
Log of per capita expenditure	−0.098***	−0.105***	−0.104***	−0.097***	−0.077***
	(0.027)	(0.040)	(0.032)	(0.037)	(0.014)
Log of family size	−0.039***	−0.022	−0.037***	−0.034**	−0.015**
	(0.013)	(0.015)	(0.014)	(0.015)	(0.007)
Ratio of males 0–5 to household size	−0.031	−0.101***	−0.045	−0.100***	−0.030
	(0.031)	(0.031)	(0.036)	(0.036)	(0.038)
Ratio of females 0–5 to household size	−0.036	−0.104***	−0.107***	−0.049	−0.079*
	(0.031)	(0.032)	(0.039)	(0.034)	(0.042)
Ratio of males 6–11 to household size	−0.002	−0.045*	−0.059**	−0.055*	−0.086**
	(0.025)	(0.027)	(0.030)	(0.030)	(0.035)
Ratio of females 6–11 to household size	0.018	−0.090***	−0.071**	−0.051	−0.050
	(0.025)	(0.026)	(0.032)	(0.031)	(0.032)
Ratio of males 12–17 to household size	−0.004	−0.022	−0.014	−0.019	−0.082**
	(0.028)	(0.030)	(0.035)	(0.034)	(0.036)
Ratio of females 12–17 to household size	0.001	−0.049	−0.019	−0.037	−0.036
	(0.028)	(0.030)	(0.034)	(0.033)	(0.039)
Ratio of females 18–64 to household size	−0.054***	−0.031**	−0.034**	−0.048***	−0.023**
	(0.018)	(0.015)	(0.014)	(0.012)	(0.010)
Ratio of males +65 to household size	0.050	−0.010	−0.008	−0.038***	−0.002
	(0.036)	(0.018)	(0.015)	(0.013)	(0.011)
Ratio of females +65 to household size	−0.148***	−0.034*	−0.035**	−0.047***	−0.038***
	(0.037)	(0.018)	(0.016)	(0.014)	(0.012)
Pampeana region	−0.021**	−0.018**	−0.023***	−0.032***	−0.011*
	(0.010)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.006)
Northeast region	0.047***	0.027***	0.022**	−0.011	−0.002
	(0.009)	(0.010)	(0.009)	(0.012)	(0.008)
Northwest region	−0.001	−0.006	−0.013	−0.024	0.007
	(0.011)	(0.013)	(0.014)	(0.019)	(0.013)
Cuyo region	−0.026**	−0.035***	−0.017	−0.036***	−0.020**
	(0.012)	(0.010)	(0.010)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Patagonia region	−0.051***	−0.053***	−0.025**	−0.051***	−0.028***
	(0.013)	(0.011)	(0.011)	(0.012)	(0.007)
Trimester 2	−0.006	0.003	0.002	0.005	−0.007
	(0.008)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.006)
Trimester 3	0.002	−0.004	−0.000	0.001	−0.006
	(0.008)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.006)
Trimester 4	0.011	0.015**	0.012	0.010	0.003
	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.006)
Age of the household head	0.000	0.000	0.001**	0.001***	0.001***
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Gender of the household head	0.002	−0.000	−0.004	0.006	0.004
	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.006)
Number of working adults	−0.020*	0.031***	−0.007	0.013	−0.018
	(0.011)	(0.011)	(0.012)	(0.013)	(0.016)
If the head has elem. educ.	0.035***	0.029**	0.013	0.002	0.007
	(0.011)	(0.014)	(0.012)	(0.014)	(0.010)
If the head has secondary educ.	0.018**	0.008	0.001	−0.002	0.005
	(0.009)	(0.010)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.006)
Constant	1.258***	1.267***	1.306***	1.215***	1.032***
	(0.244)	(0.375)	(0.303)	(0.364)	(0.144)
R-squared	0.105	0.101	0.106	0.107	0.110
N	2801	2929	2901	3043	2860

Dependent variable: food share. Estimations for the full sample of households and by quintiles of the per capita income distribution. Two-stage least squares estimation with controls. We instrument the log of per capita expenditure with the log of per capita income, following Deaton and Paxson (1998). Standard errors in parenthesis. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Table A.3:

Full set of estimates of Table 4.

	Q10	Q15	Q40	Q60	Q85	Q90
Log of per capita	−0.048***	−0.061***	−0.101***	−0.124***	−0.159***	−0.173***
expenditure	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.008)
Log of family size	−0.002	−0.006	−0.019***	−0.033***	−0.066***	−0.077***
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.004)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.007)
Ratio of males 0–5 to	−0.049***	−0.058***	−0.081***	−0.063***	−0.085***	−0.103***
household size	(0.017)	(0.021)	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.024)	(0.029)
Ratio of females 0–5 to	−0.038**	−0.043**	−0.076***	−0.073***	−0.091***	−0.102***
household size	(0.019)	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.017)	(0.025)	(0.028)
Ratio of males 6–11 to	−0.038***	−0.040***	−0.053***	−0.042***	−0.038*	−0.018
household size	(0.014)	(0.015)	(0.019)	(0.014)	(0.023)	(0.027)
Ratio of females 6–11 to	−0.041***	−0.054***	−0.052***	−0.058***	−0.033	−0.021
household size	(0.011)	(0.015)	(0.014)	(0.018)	(0.023)	(0.027)
Ratio of males 12–17 to	−0.003	−0.002	−0.015	−0.031	−0.038	−0.037
household size	(0.015)	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.020)	(0.032)	(0.030)
Ratio of females 12–17 to	−0.016	−0.018	−0.040**	−0.023	0.005	−0.032
household size	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.017)	(0.021)	(0.024)	(0.023)
Ratio of females 18–64 to	−0.017**	−0.020***	−0.032***	−0.040***	−0.047***	−0.044***
household size	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.007)	(0.011)	(0.013)
Ratio of males +65 to	−0.010	−0.012	−0.008	−0.001	−0.013	−0.028**
household size	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.009)	(0.010)	(0.012)	(0.014)
Ratio of females +65 to	−0.024***	−0.028***	−0.027***	−0.047***	−0.047***	−0.037**
household size	(0.009)	(0.008)	(0.010)	(0.010)	(0.013)	(0.015)
Pampeana region	−0.016***	−0.019***	−0.024***	−0.029***	−0.032***	−0.033***
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)
Northeast region	0.018***	0.019***	0.022***	0.017***	0.005	0.005
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.009)
Northwest region	−0.003	−0.006	−0.008	−0.016**	−0.031***	−0.034***
	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Cuyo region	−0.020***	−0.023***	−0.030***	−0.032***	−0.041***	−0.052***
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.010)
Patagonia region	−0.032***	−0.039***	−0.052***	−0.053***	−0.044***	−0.040***
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Trimester 2	0.003	0.005	0.007*	−0.001	−0.010	−0.012*
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.007)	(0.006)
Trimester 3	0.005	0.009**	0.007	0.001	−0.011*	−0.014**
	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.007)
Trimester 4	0.014***	0.017***	0.020***	0.015***	0.001	0.000
	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.007)
Age of the	0.000	0.000	0.000**	0.001***	0.001***	0.001***
household head	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Gender of the	0.003	0.001	−0.002	0.006	0.004	−0.001
household head	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.005)
Number of working	0.002	0.004	−0.000	0.009	−0.001	−0.006
adults	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.011)	(0.011)
If the head has elem. educ.	0.019***	0.020***	0.017***	0.017***	0.005	0.000
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.007)
If the head has secondary educ.	0.005	0.004	0.000	0.002	−0.006	−0.008
	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)
Constant	0.604***	0.750***	1.221***	1.479***	1.963***	2.146***
	(0.051)	(0.055)	(0.057)	(0.061)	(0.076)	(0.085)
R-squared	0.051	0.062	0.091	0.111	0.116	0.116
N			14,534

Dependent variable: food share. Estimations for the full sample of households. Quantile regression with two-stage least squares estimation with controls. We instrument the log of per capita expenditure with the log of per capita income, following Deaton and Paxson (1998). Standard errors in parenthesis. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Table A.4:

Full set of estimates of Table 5 (Panel A and Panel B).

	Q10	Q15	Q85	Q90
Panel A
Log of per capita exp.	−0.034***	−0.042***	−0.155***	−0.158***
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Log of family size	0.001	−0.000	−0.067***	−0.075***
	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.007)	(0.008)
Ratio of females 18–64 to household size	−0.025***	−0.027***	−0.046***	−0.044***
	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.011)	(0.015)
Ratio of males +65 to household size	−0.015*	−0.012	−0.015	−0.029*
	(0.009)	(0.008)	(0.014)	(0.016)
Ratio of females +65 to household size	−0.037***	−0.035***	−0.057***	−0.051***
	(0.008)	(0.009)	(0.014)	(0.016)
Pampeana region	−0.015***	−0.016***	−0.028***	−0.025***
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Northeast region	0.014***	0.015***	0.006	0.010
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.009)	(0.010)
Northwest region	−0.001	−0.000	−0.015	−0.013
	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.014)	(0.013)
Cuyo region	−0.019***	−0.020***	−0.033***	−0.036***
	(0.007)	(0.006)	(0.011)	(0.011)
Patagonia region	−0.027***	−0.031***	−0.032***	−0.029**
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.010)	(0.011)
Trimester 2	0.002	0.008*	−0.017*	−0.020**
	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.009)	(0.009)
Trimester 3	0.001	0.005	−0.021**	−0.028***
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.009)	(0.008)
Trimester 4	0.007	0.015***	−0.003	−0.006
	(0.005)	(0.004)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Age of the head	0.000**	0.000**	0.001***	0.001***
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Gender of the head	0.008	0.007	0.009	0.005
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.007)	(0.008)
Number of working adults	0.000	−0.004	−0.001	−0.013
	(0.012)	(0.010)	(0.018)	(0.021)
If elementary educ.	0.019***	0.022***	0.003	0.007
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.010)	(0.010)
If secondary educ.	0.005	0.007*	−0.005	−0.004
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Constant	0.462***	0.564***	1.912***	1.982***
	(0.052)	(0.054)	(0.086)	(0.098)
Pseudo R-squared	0.043	0.052	0.111	0.111
N		8218
Panel B
Log of per capita exp.	−0.059***	−0.068***	−0.171***	−0.179***
	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.011)
Log of family size	−0.015	0.001	−0.061**	−0.104***
	(0.028)	(0.024)	(0.029)	(0.036)
Ratio of males 0–5 to hh size	−0.043	−0.082**	−0.127***	−0.093
	(0.043)	(0.039)	(0.048)	(0.059)
Ratio of females 0–5 to hh size	−0.028	−0.061	−0.114**	−0.086
	(0.045)	(0.041)	(0.050)	(0.065)
Ratio of males 6–11 to hh size	−0.032	−0.069*	−0.045	0.003
	(0.044)	(0.040)	(0.049)	(0.062)
Ratio of females 6–11 to hh size	−0.017	−0.055	−0.020	0.014
	(0.040)	(0.040)	(0.054)	(0.062)
Ratio of males 12–17 to hh size	0.043	−0.003	−0.024	0.001
	(0.048)	(0.046)	(0.057)	(0.059)
Ratio of females 12–17 to hh size	−0.004	−0.053	−0.009	0.028
	(0.046)	(0.046)	(0.051)	(0.059)
Ratio of females 18–64 to hh size	0.005	−0.012	−0.026	−0.013
	(0.016)	(0.015)	(0.023)	(0.030)
Ratio of males +65 to hh size	−0.003	−0.012	0.022	0.008
	(0.015)	(0.016)	(0.021)	(0.023)
Ratio of females +65 to hh size	0.001	−0.015	−0.018	0.000
	(0.020)	(0.019)	(0.023)	(0.032)
Pampeana region	−0.008	−0.008	−0.038***	−0.040***
	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Northeast region	0.015**	0.017**	0.014	0.013
	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.009)	(0.010)
Northwest region	−0.003	−0.010	−0.042***	−0.046***
	(0.008)	(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.014)
Cuyo region	−0.018**	−0.018**	−0.047***	−0.048***
	(0.008)	(0.009)	(0.011)	(0.012)
Patagonia region	−0.029***	−0.039***	−0.033***	−0.033***
	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.010)	(0.011)
Trimester 2	−0.002	0.004	−0.008	−0.008
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.009)	(0.008)
Trimester 3	0.004	0.009	−0.007	−0.011
	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.008)	(0.009)
Trimester 4	0.013***	0.018***	0.003	−0.005
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.009)	(0.009)
Age of the head	−0.000	−0.000	0.000	0.000
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Gender of the head	0.002	−0.001	0.006	−0.001
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.006)	(0.006)
Number of working adults	0.005	0.007	0.004	0.010
	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.012)	(0.014)
If elementary educ.	0.004	0.009	−0.012	−0.013
	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.009)	(0.010)
If secondary educ.	−0.005	−0.003	−0.022***	−0.020**
	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.007)	(0.009)
Constant	0.723***	0.819***	2.085***	2.243***
	(0.068)	(0.070)	(0.089)	(0.113)
Pseudo R-squared	0.047	0.055	0.118	0.121
N	7683

Dependent variable: food share. Estimations for all households without children. Quantile regression with two-stage least squares estimation with controls. We instrument the log of per capita expenditure with the log of per capita income, following Deaton and Paxson (1998). Standard errors in parenthesis. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. Dependent variable: food share. Estimations for all households with 2 adults with and without children. Quantile regression with two-stage least squares estimation with controls. We instrument the log of per capita expenditure with the log of per capita income, following Deaton and Paxson (1998). Standard errors in parenthesis. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

References

Abdulai, A. 2003. “Economies of Scale and the Demand for Food in Switzerland: Parametric and Non-parametric Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 54 (2): 247–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2003.tb00062.x.Search in Google Scholar

Banks, J., R. Blundell, and A. Lewbel. 1997. “Quadratic Engel Curves and Consumer Demand.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 79 (4): 527–39. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465397557015.Search in Google Scholar

Barten, A. P. 1964. Family Composition, Prices and Expenditure Patterns. Econometric Analysis for National Economic Planning: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Symposium of the Colston Research Society held in the University of Bristol, April 6th–9th.Search in Google Scholar

Betti, G., L. Mangiavacchi, and L. Piccoli. 2020. “Women and Poverty: Insights from Individual Consumption in Albania.” Review of Economics of the Household 18 (1): 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09452-3.Search in Google Scholar

Brzozowski, M., T. F. Crossley, and J. K. Winter. 2017. “Does Survey Recall Error Explain the Deaton-Paxson Puzzle?” Economics Letters 158: 18–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.020.Search in Google Scholar

Cherchye, L., B. De Rock, and F. Vermeulen. 2012. “Economic Well-Being and Poverty Among the Elderly: An Analysis Based on a Collective Consumption Model.” European Economic Review 56 (6): 985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.05.006.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, T. F., and Y. Lu. 2018. “Returns to Scale in Food Preparation and the Deaton-Paxson Puzzle.” Review of Economics of the Household 16 (1): 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-017-9399-4.Search in Google Scholar

Deaton, A. 1997. The Analysis of Household Survey: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.1596/0-8018-5254-4Search in Google Scholar

Deaton, A., and C. Paxson. 1998. “Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food.” Journal of Political Economy 106 (5): 897–930. https://doi.org/10.1086/250035.Search in Google Scholar

Deaton, A., and C. Paxson. 2003. “Engel’s what? a Response to Gan and Vernon.” Journal of Political Economy 111 (6): 1378–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/378535.Search in Google Scholar

Dunbar, G. R., A. Lewbel, and K. Pendakur. 2013. “Children’s Resources in Collective Households: Identification, Estimation, and an Application to Child Poverty in Malawi.” The American Economic Review 103 (1): 438–71. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.438.Search in Google Scholar

Echeverría, L., M. Menon, F. Perali, and M. Berges. 2019. “Intra-household Inequality and Child Welfare in Argentina.” In CEDLAS, Working Paper, No. 241.Search in Google Scholar

Gan, L., and V. Vernon. 2003. “Testing the Barten Model of Economies of Scale in Household Consumption: Toward Resolving a Paradox of Deaton and Paxson.” Journal of Political Economy 111 (6): 1361–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/378534.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, J. 2002. “Why Does the Engel Method Work? Food Demand, Economies of Size and Household Survey Methods.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics 64 (4): 341–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.00023.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, J., and B. Kim. 2007. “Measurement Error in Recall Surveys and the Relationship between Household Size and Food Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (2): 473–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.00978.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, J., and B. Kim. 2018. “Economies of Scale, Bulk Discounts, and Liquidity Constraints: Comparing Unit Value and Transaction Level Evidence in a Poor Country.” Review of Economics of the Household 16 (1): 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-017-9388-7.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, J., K. Beegle, J. De Weerdt, and J. Friedman. 2015. “What Does Variation in Survey Design Reveal about the Nature of Measurement Errors in Household Consumption?” Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics 77 (3): 466–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12066.Search in Google Scholar

Horowitz, A. W. 2002. Household Size and the Demand for Food: A Puzzle Resolved? Unpublished Manuscript. Arkansas: University of Arkansas.Search in Google Scholar

Koenker, R. 2005. Quantile Regression (Econometric Society Monographs). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511754098Search in Google Scholar

Koenker, R., and G. BassettJr. 1978. “Regression Quantiles.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 46 (1): 33–50, https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643.Search in Google Scholar

Logan, T. D. 2011. “Economies of Scale in the Household: Puzzles and Patterns from the American Past.” Economic Inquiry 49 (4): 1008–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00240.x.Search in Google Scholar

Perali, F. 2008. “The Second Engel Law: Is it a Paradox?” European Economic Review 52 (8): 1353–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.01.005.Search in Google Scholar

Pizzolito, G. 2007. “Curvas de Engel de alimentos.preferencias heterogéneas y características.” In CEDLAS Working Paper, 45.Search in Google Scholar

Tommasi, D. 2019. “Control of Resources, Bargaining Power and the Demand of Food: Evidence from PROGRESA.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 161: 265–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.04.008.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-03-04

Accepted: 2023-03-11

Published Online: 2023-03-27

Food Consumption in Argentina: The Deaton-Paxson Puzzle Beyond Mean Effects

Abstract

References

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same Issue