A Comparison of Consumption-Related Statistics *
A Comparison of Consumption-Related Statistics *
复制标题
消费相关统计数据比较*
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Unayama
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Unayama
本文介绍了家庭收支调查（FIES）、全国家庭收支调查（NSFIE）、生活条件综合调查（CSLC）和家庭经济调查（SHE）的概要，并对这些主要的消费相关政府统计调查的结果进行了比较。FIES的消费支出总额是最受关注的消费数据项目，其趋势与CSLC和NSFIE的趋势大致一致，但明显低于SHE的趋势。因此，本文以FIES和SHE的差异为中心，探讨了这种差异的原因。两次调查的趋势差异可以分为SHE中规定的商品和服务的部分以及其他商品和服务的部分，因此本文分别对这些部分进行了研究。除了安全、健康和环境调查中具体说明的商品和服务之外，在商品和服务方面出现的差异似乎是由调查的设计造成的，也就是说，是由两项调查的小组结构造成的。FIES存在调查疲劳偏差，h由于家庭厌倦了记录，重复调查会导致支出报告不足，而SHE存在流失偏差，h由于不合作家庭从调查中流失，愿意完成调查的人会被过度抽样。然而，一旦我们控制了这些偏差，两项调查的结果几乎一致。至于在安全、健康和环境统计中所列明的货物和服务方面出现的差异，在财务和环境统计中少报耐用品和其他高价物品将发挥重要作用。FIES使用自由输入格式或后编码方法，受访者记录乳制品支出金额，而SHE使用预编码问卷格式。使用自由进入格式似乎造成大量遗漏，特别是在高价项目的支出方面。总的来说，很明显，两次调查之间的差异源于所使用的调查方法。然而，改变所使用的方法既不容易，也不一定可取，因为调查方法的选择在实际和学术上都起着重要作用。从这个意义上说，用户最好充分了解每项调查的独特性，并在使用前对其进行适当的修正。
This paper provides an outline of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), the National Survey of Family Income and Expenditure (NSFIE), the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions (CSLC), and the Survey of Household Economy (SHE) and compares the results of these major consumption-related governmental statistical surveys. Trends in the FIES figure for total consumption expenditure, which is the item of consumer data that attracts the greatest attention, are broadly consistent with those in the CSLC and the NSFIE, but clearly lower than those in the SHE. Accordingly, focusing on the difference between the FIES and the SHE, this paper examines the causes of this disparity. The difference between trends in the two survey can be broken down into the portion relating to goods and services specified in the SHE and the portion relating to the other goods and services, so this paper examined these portions separately. The disparity arising in goods and services other than those specified in the SHE would appear to be caused by the design of the survey; that is, the panel structure of the two surveys. The FIES has a gsurvey fatigue bias, h with which the expenditures becomes under-reported with repetition of the survey since households become tired of keeping records, while the SHE has an gattrition bias, h with which those who are willing to complete the survey are over-sampled since non-cooperative households drop from the survey. However, once we control these biases, the results are almost consistent in the both surveys. As for the disparity arising in goods and services specified in the SHE, the under-reporting of durables and other high-priced items in the FIES would play an important role. Whereas the FIES uses a free-entry format, or after-code method, in which respondents record the amount of expenditure in dairy, the SHE uses a pre-coded questionnaire format. It would appear that use of the free-entry format gives rise to substantial omissions, particularly of expenditure on high-priced items. Overall, it became clear that the difference between the two surveys stems from the survey methods used. However, it is neither easy nor necessarily desirable to change the method used, because the choice of survey method has an important role to play, both in practical and academic terms. In this sense, it is desirable for users to fully understand the distinctive characteristics of each survey and to make appropriate corrections for them before use.
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
Journal of Japanese and International Economies
影响因子：
--
作者：
Takashi Unayama;Melvin Stephens Jr.
通讯作者：
Melvin Stephens Jr.