ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

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

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
TITA research
TITA research

Lindblom: Sweet or Sour? Effects of income to expenditure on various grocery categories in 1985-2012. Presentation at TITA Annual Research Meeting, Turku 15.-16.9.2016.

1 of 28
Download to read offline
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)
Helsingin Sanomat 14.9.2016
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 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
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 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
Veggies CES’s 2001 Confidence intervals (95%) 0.165 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
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 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
Meat CES’s 2012 Confidence intervals (95%) 0.165 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
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 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
Sugar CES’s 1985 Confidence intervals (95%) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
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 Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary *Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type
Fruit 2012 EDU 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.105 Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary *Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type
Sugar 2012 EDU 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.105 0.11 Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary *Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type
 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

More Related Content

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

  • 1. 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
  • 2. 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
  • 3.  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
  • 4. 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”)
  • 5.  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)
  • 7. 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
  • 8.  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
  • 9.  Official Statistics Finland’s Household Budget Survey for years 1985–2012 (8 waves) (“kulutustutkimusaineisto Aikasarja II”) Data
  • 10.  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
  • 11. Trends for grocery category expenditures 1985-2012
  • 12. 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
  • 13. 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 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 14. 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 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 15. Veggies CES’s 2001 Confidence intervals (95%) 0.165 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 16. 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 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 17. Meat CES’s 2012 Confidence intervals (95%) 0.165 0.17 0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 18. 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 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 19. Sugar CES’s 1985 Confidence intervals (95%) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 Quint1 Quint3 Quint5 *Controlled for Education of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 20. Skipping the trends according education…
  • 21. …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
  • 22. 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 Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary *Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 23. Fruit 2012 EDU 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.105 Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary *Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 24. Sugar 2012 EDU 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.105 0.11 Elementary sch Secondary Lower tertiary Upper tertiary *Controlled for Income of HEH, age of HEH, household type
  • 25.  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
  • 26.  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
  • 28. Consortium partners of TITA project