Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 365–385 | Cite as

The Index of Household Financial Condition, Combining Subjective and Objective Indicators: An Appraisal of Italian Households

  • Piotr Bialowolski
  • Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska
Article

Abstract

With data from the Italian Survey of Household Income and Wealth, we present an Index of Household Financial Condition and quantify with it the position of households between 2004 and 2010. The Index of Household Financial Condition is composed of subjective and objective indicators, which enable to capture differently the existing uncertainty concerning the future development of a household’s financial situation. We show with a measurement model based on multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) that the proposed Index is two-dimensional and comprises financial position and financial prudence. Through application of the MGCFA, we show that the interrelations between the indicators had not changed at four measurement occasions (2004–2010), and thus the proposed set comprises a coherent and time-invariant framework for measuring two dimensions of the latent concept: financial condition. Established measurement invariance in the MGCFA framework allows an assessment of trend in financial position and financial prudence of Italian households. We show that the financial position of Italian households improved in the period 2004–2006 and later declined. Improvement of the financial prudence was observed, however, till 2008. Finally, we incorporate a set of socioeconomic features of Italian households into a structural equation model. With the provided set of indicators, we find positive relation between age and both financial position and prudence, but also we show the positive impact of white-collar jobs on scores in each of the dimensions of the financial condition.

Keywords

Financial situation Households Index Measurement invariance Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis 

References

  1. Anderloni, L., Bacchiocchi, E., & Vandone, D. (2012). Household financial vulnerability: An empirical analysis. Research in Economics, 66(3), 284–296. doi: 10.1016/j.rie.2012.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderloni, L., & Vandone, D. (2010). Risk of overindebtedness and behavioural factors. Working papers, Vol. 21501, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A., McKay, S., Kempson, E., & Collard, S. (2006). Levels of financial capability in the UK: Results of a baseline survey. Consumer Research, 46, 1–150. Retrieved from http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/consumer-research/crpr47.pdf.
  4. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2), 229–237. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banca d’Italia. (2011). Supplements to the statistical Bulletin. Monetary and Financial Indicators. Household Wealth in Italy 2010. New series year XXII14 December 2011, Vol. 64, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  6. Banca d’Italia. (2012). Supplements to the statistical Bulletin. Sample Survey. Household Income and Wealth in 2010. New series: Year XXII25 January 2012, Vol. 6, pp. 1–144.Google Scholar
  7. Banco de España. (2011). Survey of household finances (EFF) 2008: Methods, results and changes since 2005. Economic Bulletin, 91–123.Google Scholar
  8. Betti, G., Dourmashkin, N., Rossi, M., Verma, V., & Yin, Y. (2001). Study of the problem of consumer indebtedness: Statistical aspects final report. London: ORC Macro.Google Scholar
  9. Bollen, K. A. (2007). Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2), 219–228. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bostic, R., Gabriel, S., & Painter, G. (2009). Housing wealth, financial wealth, and consumption: New evidence from micro data. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), 79–89. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, S., & Taylor, K. (2008). Household debt and financial assets: Evidence from Germany, Great Britain and the USA. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171(3), 615–643. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00531.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunetti, M., Giarda, E., & Torricelli, C. (2012). Is financial fragility a matter of illiquidity? An appraisal for Italian households. CEFIN working papers, Vol. 32, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: a walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940097.
  15. Carroll, C. D., & Toche, P. (2009). A tractable model of buffer stock saving. NBER working paper no. 15265.Google Scholar
  16. Christelis, D., Jappelli, T., Paccagnella, O., & Weber, G. (2009). Income, wealth and financial fragility in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(4), 359–376. doi: 10.1177/1350506809341516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Ribar, D. C. (2009). Financial stress, family conflict, and youths’ successful transition to adult roles. IZA discussion paper, Vol. 4618, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
  18. Davidov, E. (2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human values measurements with the Second Round of the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods, 2(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  19. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Billiet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2008). Values and support for immigration: A cross-country comparison. European Sociological Review, 1–17. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcn020.
  20. De Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Fox, J.-P. (2007). Relaxing measurement invariance in cross- national consumer research using a hierarchical IRT model. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(August), 260–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dey, S., Djoudad, R., & Terajima, Y. (2008). A tool for assessing financial vulnerabilities in the household sector. Bank of Canada Review, (Summer 2008), 45–54.Google Scholar
  22. Disney, R., Bridges, S., & Gathergood, J. (2008). Drivers of over-indebtedness. Report to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, (October), pp. 1–87.Google Scholar
  23. Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., Kim, C., De Sherbinin, A., Srebotnjak, T., & Mara, V. (2008). Environmental performance index. New Haven.Google Scholar
  24. Frigge, M., Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1989). Some Implementations of the Boxplot. The American Statistician, 43(1), 50–54.Google Scholar
  25. Fuenzalida, M., & Ruiz-Tagle, J. (2010). Household financial vulnerability. In R. A. Alfaro (Ed.), Financial stability, monetary policy, and central banking (pp. 299–326). Central Bank of Chile.Google Scholar
  26. Georgarakos, D., Lojschova, A., & Ward-Warmedinger, M. (2010). Mortgage, indebtedness and household financial distress. Working paper series, Vol. 1156, pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
  27. Giarda, E. (2010). Persistency of financial distress amongst Italian households: Evidence from dynamic probit models.Google Scholar
  28. Gomez-Salvador, R., Lojschova, A., & Westermann, T. (2011). Household sector borrowing in the Euro Area. A microdata perspective. Occasional paper series, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
  29. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11), 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horn, J. L., & Mcardle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research: An International Journal Devoted to the Scientific Study of the Aging Process, 18(3), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205–218. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huber, W., Von Heydebreck, A., Sultmann, H., Poustka, A., & Vingron, M. (2002). Variance stabilization applied to microarray data calibration and to the quantification of differential expression. Bioinformatics, 18(Suppl. 1), S96–S104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jansen, R. (2011). Using differential item functioning approach to investigate measurement invariance. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 415–432). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  35. Jappelli, T., & Padula, M. (2007). Households’ saving and debt in Italy.Google Scholar
  36. Jappelli, T., Pagano, M., & Di Maggio, M. (2008). Households’ indebtedness and financial fragility. 9th Jacques Polak annual research conference (pp. 1–43). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(38), 16489–16493. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011492107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Katona, G. (1946). Psychological analysis of business decisions and expectations. American Economic Review, 36(1), 44–62.Google Scholar
  39. Katona, G. (1947). Contribution of psychological data to economic analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 42(239), 449–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keese, M. (2012). Who feels constrained by high debt burdens? Subjective vs. objective measures of household debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 125–141. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lusardi, A., Schneider, D., & Tufano, P. (2011). Financially fragile households: Evidence and implications. Brookings papers on economic activity (Vol. 42, pp. 1–48). doi: 10.1353/eca.2011.0002.
  42. May, O., & Tudela, M. (2005). When is mortgage indebtedness a financial burden to British households? A dynamic probit approach. The Bank of England working paper, Vol. 277, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
  43. McCarthy, Y. (2011). Behavioural characteristics and financial distress. Working paper series, Vol. 1303, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
  44. Meredith, W. (1993). MI, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meredith, William., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), 69–77. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed., pp. 1–856). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen&Muthen.Google Scholar
  47. Onori, D. (2012). Welfare, competition, specialization and growth. Research in Economics, 66(4), 355–370. doi: 10.1016/j.rie.2012.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Osberg, L. (Ed.). (1991). Economic inequality and poverty: international perspectives. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Osborne, J. W. (2010). Improving your data transformations: Applying the Box-Cox transformation. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(12).Google Scholar
  50. Saisana, M. (2010). ELLI-Index: A sound measure for lifelong learning in the EU. doi: 10.2788/145.
  51. Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Capturing bias in structural equation modeling. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (pp. 3–34). New York, London: Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group.Google Scholar
  52. Worthington, A. C. (2006). Debt as a source of financial stress in Australian households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(1), 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n3.pdf.
  54. Zhang, L. (2012). Saving and retirement behavior under quasi-hyperbolic discounting. Journal of Economics, 109(1), 57–71. doi: 10.1007/s00712-012-0302-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Union 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Statistics and DemographyWarsaw School of EconomicsWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative MethodsUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit, Institute for the Protection and Security of the CitizenJoint Research Centre, European CommissionIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations