, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 574–588 | Cite as

Bayesian benchmarking with applications to small area estimation

  • G. S. Datta
  • M. GhoshEmail author
  • R. Steorts
  • J. Maples
Original Paper


It is well-known that small area estimation needs explicit or at least implicit use of models (cf. Rao in Small Area Estimation, Wiley, New York, 2003). These model-based estimates can differ widely from the direct estimates, especially for areas with very low sample sizes. While model-based small area estimates are very useful, one potential difficulty with such estimates is that when aggregated, the overall estimate for a larger geographical area may be quite different from the corresponding direct estimate, the latter being usually believed to be quite reliable. This is because the original survey was designed to achieve specified inferential accuracy at this higher level of aggregation. The problem can be more severe in the event of model failure as often there is no real check for validity of the assumed model. Moreover, an overall agreement with the direct estimates at an aggregate level may sometimes be politically necessary to convince the legislators of the utility of small area estimates.

One way to avoid this problem is the so-called “benchmarking approach”, which amounts to modifying these model-based estimates so that we get the same aggregate estimate for the larger geographical area. Currently, the most popular approach is the so-called “raking” or ratio adjustment method, which involves multiplying all the small area estimates by a constant data-dependent factor so that the weighted total agrees with the direct estimate. There are alternate proposals, mostly from frequentist considerations, which meet also the aforementioned benchmarking criterion.

We propose in this paper a general class of constrained Bayes estimators which also achieve the necessary benchmarking. Many of the frequentist estimators, including some of the raked estimators, follow as special cases of our general result. Explicit Bayes estimators are derived which benchmark the weighted mean or both the weighted mean and weighted variability. We illustrate our methodology by developing poverty rates in school-aged children at the state level and then benchmarking these estimates to match at the national level. Unlike the existing frequentist benchmarking literature, which is primarily based on linear models, the proposed Bayesian approach can accommodate any arbitrary model, and the benchmarked Bayes estimators are based only on the posterior mean and the posterior variance-covariance matrix.


Area-level Penalty parameter Two-stage Weighted mean Weighted variability 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell WR (1999). Accounting for uncertainty about variances in small area estimation. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 52nd Session, Helsinki Google Scholar
  2. Berger JO (1985) Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Datta GS, Lahiri P (2000) A unified measure of uncertainty of estimated best linear unbiased predictors in small area estimation problems. Stat Sin 10:613–627 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Datta GS, Rao JNK, Smith DD (2005) On measuring the variability of small area estimators under a basic area level model. Biometrika 92:183–196 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fay RE, Herriot RA (1979) Estimates of income from small places: an application of James–Stein procedures to census data. J Am Stat Assoc 74:269–277 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flegal M, Jones G (2010) Batch means and spectral variance estimators in Markov chain Monte Carlo. Ann Stat 38:1034–1070 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghosh M (1992) Constrained Bayes estimation with applications. J Am Stat Assoc 87:533–540 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Isaki CT, Tsay JH, Fuller WA (2000) Estimation of census adjustment factors. Surv Methodol 26:31–42 Google Scholar
  9. Louis TA (1984) Estimating a population of parameter values using Bayes and empirical Bayes methods. J Am Stat Assoc 79:393–398 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pfeffermann D, Barnard CH (1991) Some new estimators for small area means with application to the assessment of farmland values. J Bus Econ Stat 9:73–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pfeffermann D, Nathan G (1981) Regression analysis of data from a cluster sample. J Am Stat Assoc 76:681–689 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pfeffermann D, Tiller R (2006) Small-area estimation with state-space models subject to benchmark constraints. J Am Stat Assoc 101:1387–1397 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Prasad NGN, Rao JNK (1990) The estimation of the mean squared error of small-area estimators. J Am Stat Assoc 85:163–171 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Toto MaCS, Nandram B (2010). A Bayesian predictive inference for small area means incorporating covariates and sampling weights. J Stat Plan Inference 140:2963–2979 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rao JNK (2003) Small area estimation. Wiley, New York zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang J, Fuller WA, Qu Y (2008). Small area estimation under a restriction. Surv Methodol 34:29–36 Google Scholar
  17. You Y, Rao JNK (2002) A pseudo-empirical best linear unbiased prediction approach to small area estimation using survey weights. Can J Stat 30:431–439 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. You Y, Rao JNK (2003) Pseudo hierarchical Bayes small area estimation combining unit level models and survey weights. J Stat Plan Inference 111:197–208 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. You Y, Rao JNK, Dick P (2004) Benchmarking hierarchical Bayes small area estimators in the Canadian census undercoverage estimation. Stat Transit 6:631–640 Google Scholar
  20. Zellner A (1986) Further results on Bayesian minimum expected loss (MELO) estimates and posterior distributions for structural coefficients. In: Slottje DJ (ed) Advances in Econometrics. JAI Press, London, pp 171–182 Google Scholar
  21. Zellner A (1988) Bayesian analysis in econometrics. J Econom 37:27–50 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zellner A (1994) Bayesian and non-Bayesian estimation using balanced loss functions. In: Gupta SS, Berger JO (eds) Statistical decision theory and related topics V. Springer, New York, pp 377–390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. S. Datta
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Ghosh
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • R. Steorts
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • J. Maples
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.US Bureau of the CensusWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations