Scanner Data-Based Panel Price Indexes.
Scanner Data-Based Panel Price Indexes.
复制标题
基于扫描仪数据的面板价格指数。
DOI：
10.1093/ajae/aay032
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Zhang,Chenhua
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhen,Chen;Finkelstein,EricA;Karns,ShawnA;Leibtag,Ephraim;Zhang,Chenhua
我们使用零售扫描数据构建面板价格指数，这些数据可以比较空间和时间上的消费成本。两种类型的面板指数：滚动窗口面板扩展的多边Cave-Christensen-Diewert指数与Törnqvist指数作为其元素，和多边Gini-Eltetö-Köves-Szulc指数使用Fisher理想指数作为其元素。滚动窗口方法保持了已发布索引号的不可修订性，同时允许计算新时期和地点的索引号，并更新一篮子项目。同时，价格比较的多边结构消除了标准连锁指数的显著向下漂移。使用基于零售饮料扫描仪数据的县级双边和面板指数，我们实验性地调整了参与者在饮料上花费的补充营养援助计划（SNAP）福利的购买平价部分。考虑到时间和空间的成本差异，超过2%的SNAP分配用于饮料被重新分配，或大约5%的分配变化平均为一个县。大约90%的重新安置的SNAP基金用于调整食品成本的空间差异。我们还比较了零售扫描数据指数所暗示的SNAP分配与基于美国农业部季度家庭食品价格数据库（QFAHPD）的指数所暗示的分配。对单位价值和产品质量的处理可能导致了零售扫描仪数据指数和QFAHPD指数之间的显著差异。
We construct panel price indexes using retail scanner data that allow comparisons of consumption cost across space and time. Two types of panel indexes are examined: the rolling‐window panel extensions of the multilateral Cave‐Christensen‐Diewert index with the Törnqvist index as its elements, and of the multilateral Gini‐Eltetö‐Köves‐Szulc index using the Fisher ideal index as its elements. The rolling window method maintains the nonrevisability of published index numbers while allowing index numbers for new periods and locations to be calculated and the basket of items to be updated. Meanwhile, the multilateral structure of price comparison eliminates significant downward drift in standard chained indexes. Using county‐level bilateral and panel indexes based on retail beverage scanner data, we experimentally adjust for purchasing parity the portion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits that participants spend on beverages. Accounting for temporal and spatial cost differences causes over 2% of SNAP allotment spent on beverages to be reallocated, or approximately a 5% change in allotment on average for a county. About 90% of the relocated SNAP fund is to adjust for spatial differences in food cost. We also compare SNAP allotments implied by the retail scanner data indexes with those implied by indexes based on the USDA Quarterly Food‐at‐Home Price Database (QFAHPD). The treatment of unit values and product quality may have contributed to the significant differences observed between the retail scanner data indexes and the QFAHPD indexes.