Suchergebnisse

To study changes in household consumption patterns, five socio‐economic household groups were defined using a new multidimensional index (IMPR) composed of three dimensions: satisfaction of basic needs, marginalization relative to a reference population, and total disposable household income. When household incomes rose from 1969 to 1992, lower socio‐economic groups did not display the same consumption behaviours as upper‐income classes. The growth in household income during their life‐cycles did not allow them to catch up to higher‐income households. Middle‐class households experienced marked changes in consumption over their life‐cycle's, but in the 1990s, they experienced difficulties.Cinq groupes socioéconomiques de ménages sont définis à l'aide d'un nouvel indice multidimensionnel de pauvreté‐richesse (IMPR), construit à partir de trois dimensions: satisfaction des besoins de base, marginalisation par rapport à une population de référence et revenu total disponible du ménage. De 1969 à 1992, quand les revenus des ménages augmentent, les classes socioéconomiques qui occupent des positions inférieures n'ont pas les mêmes comporte‐ments de consommation que les classes supérieures. La croissance des revenus des ménages les moins riches au cours de leur cycle de vie ne leur permet pas de rattraper les positions des ménages plus riches. Dans les années 1990, la classe moyenne connaît une situation difficile.

International audience The problem addressed in this article is the bias to income and expenditure elasticities estimated on pseudo-panel data caused by measurement error and unobserved heterogeneity. We gauge empirically these biases by comparing cross-sectional, pseudo-panel and true panel data from both Polish and American expenditure surveys. Our results suggest that unobserved heterogeneity imparts a downward bias to cross-section estimates of income elasticities of at-home food expenditures and an upward bias to estimates of income elasticities of away-from-home food expenditures. "Within" and first-difference estimators suffer less bias, but only if the effects of measurement error are accounted for with instrumental variables. ; 12 p.