Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery categories in 1985-2012

Sweet or Sour?
Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery
categories in 1985-2012
TITA research meeting 15.9.2016
Taru Lindblom
Post doc researcher, Economic Sociology, UTU
TITA WP 1.1 (Financial inequality)
Tackling Inequalities
in Time of Austerity

0.263
0.229
0.192
0.172 0.17
0.163 0.164
0.217
0.181
0.175
0.153 0.149
0.141 0.142
0.168
0.139 0.136
0.121
0.112 0.11
0.115
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 2012
Consumption expenditure shares of groceries on total
expenditure 1985-2012 by income quintiles
(unadjusted) %
Quint1 Quint3 Quint5

 The share of disposable income spent on food has decreased
significantly during the past decades in Finland. The disparities
between the income groups have consequently diminished.
 Still, the dietary patterns and grocery consumption expenditure
vary greatly across socio-economic determinants
 Several disadvantages are reflected through poor diet choices
 Only few studies assess several socio-economic position
indicators simultaneously
 Previous research shows mixed results: a) low income directs
towards cheaper calories, b) high education directs towards
healthier options, c) the diet choices are a cumulative effect of
both income level and education level. (Roos et al. 1996; Galobardes et al.
2001;Giskes et al. 2002; Monsivais & Drewnowski 2009)
 The mechanisms for this behaviour have not been established,
though.
Motivation

Sugars
Fruit & Berries
Vegetables
Meat
Source: Lindblom, Taru & Sarpila, Outi (2014) Koulutus ja tulotaso vaikuttavat ruokailutottumuksiin.
Hyvinvointikatsaus 4/2014. (”Education and income affect the dietary habits”)

 Combination of education and income has varying
effects: educated group with lower income tend to
emphasis lighter diet (more fruit, veggies and less
fat); high income groups with lesser education
consume more meat and fish. For sugary groceries
the higher education groups consume same share
independent of income level, whereas for lower
education groups income is significant factor (neg.
correlation) (Lindblom & Sarpila 2014)

0.095
0.082
0.096
0.091
0.096
0.09
0.083
0.086
0.092
0.084 0.084
0.088 0.088
0.073
0.08
0.083
0.076
0.075
0.078
0.083
0.07
0.075
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1
1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 2012
Consumption expenditure shares on Sugars (of total grocery
consumption expenditure excl beverages, unadjusted) 1985-
2012
Tulokvint1 Tulokvint3 Tulokvint5Quint1 Quint3 Quint5
Increase of tax on
sweets 1987
Tax on
sweets 2011
Abolishment of
tax on sweets
2000

 How are the household’s grocery expenditure shares
patterned according socio-economic determinants?
 Esp. such grocery categories that can be perceived
either healthy or unhealthy, such as vegetables and fruit
on one hand, and sugar on the other hand, or socially
prestigious, such as meat
 How have the consumption expenditure shares (CES)
of these categories developed during the past 30
years in Finland?
 What kind of disparities can be found among the
income (and other socio-economic) groups in terms
of their grocery consumption shares ?
Research questions

 Official Statistics Finland’s Household Budget Survey
for years 1985–2012 (8 waves)
(“kulutustutkimusaineisto Aikasarja II”)
Data

 Groceries (dependent)
 Meat products, Vegetables, Fruit&Berries, Sweets
 Share of total household expenditure
 i.e. meat expenditure / total grocery expenditure (exl.
beverages)
 Income
 Quintile groups based on the OECD-modified equivalised
disposable income
 Socio-economic variables (controls)
 Education level of HEH
 Age of HEH
 Household type
Measures

Trends for grocery category
expenditures 1985-2012

0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
0.085
0.09
1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 2012
%
Consumption expenditure shares on Fruit & Berries by income
quintiles (adj*)
Quin1
Quin3
Quin5
*Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Fruit & Berries CES’s 1985
Confidence intervals (95%)
0.05
0.055
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1

0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 2012
% Consumption expenditure shares on Veggies by income
quartiles (adj*)
Quint1
Quint3
Quint5

Veggies CES’s 2001
0.165
0.17
0.175
0.18
0.185
0.19
0.195
0.2
0.205
0.21

0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 2012
%
Consumption expenditure shares on Meat by income
quintiles (adj*)
Quin1
Quin3
Quin5

Meat CES’s 2012
0.165
0.17
0.175
0.18
0.185
0.19
0.195
0.2
0.205
0.21

0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2006 2012
%
Sugars (adj) by income quintiles
Quin1
Quin3
Quin5

Sugar CES’s 1985
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13

Skipping the trends according
education…

…but showing the latest CES’s
Meat 2012 EDU
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.22
Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary
*Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type

Veggies 2012 EDU
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1
0.105
0.11
0.115
0.12
0.125
0.13

Fruit 2012 EDU
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1
0.105

Sugar 2012 EDU
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1
0.105
0.11

 Sugar not the determinant for lower classes, rather
the absence of healthy foods (veggies, fruit)
 Meat still clearly for the upper income grops, but also
for lower education groups. Q5 has diminished meat
consumption share; Q1 and Q3 have fluctuated but
now at the 1985 level
 Determing the price level for studied categories
proved difficult. Only rough estimates were used.
Prices for meat products have in general increased
within the past 10 years. Same with the sweets.
Veggies, fruit and berries have become cheaper.
Conclusions

 Individuals?
 Household level determinants a challenge when explaining
effects
 Total costs of food?
 Low amount of money spent on food is associated with poor
quality diets and is tied with economic constraints (e.g. Darmon et al.
2003)
 Amount
 Expenditure share (euros) does not totally capture the balance of
healthy and unhealthy amounts consumed in one’s diet
 Access?
 People (esp. lower SES) living in areas with less supply of healthy food
options tend to follow more unhealthy diets (e.g. Ball et al. 2009)
 Gender?
 Many studies verify the impact of gender for food choices (e.g.
Purhonen & Gronow 2014)
Future research avenues

Kiitos!
taru.lindblom@utu.fi
http://blogit.utu.fi/tita/

Consortium partners of TITA project

Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery categories in 1985-2012

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery categories in 1985-2012

Semelhante a Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery categories in 1985-2012 (20)

Mais de TITA research

Mais de TITA research (20)

Último

Último (20)

Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery categories in 1985-2012