The paper examines the distributional implications of selective compliance in sample surveys, whereby households with different incomes are not equally likely to participate. Poverty and inequality measurement implications are discussed for monotonically decreasing and inverted-U compliance-income relationships. We demonstrate that the latent income effect on the probability of compliance can be estimated from information on response rates across geographic areas. On implementing the method on the Current Population Survey for the U.S. we find that the compliance probability falls monotonically as income rises. Correcting for nonresponse appreciably increases mean income and inequality, but has only a small impact on poverty incidence up to poverty lines common in the U.S.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Alho, J.M.: Adjusting for nonresponse bias using logistic regression, Biometrica 77(3) (1990), 617–624.
Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of inequality, J. Economic Theory 2 (1970), 244–263.
Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of poverty, Econometrica 55 (1987), 749–764.
Atkinson, A.B. and Micklewright, J.: On the reliability of income data in the family expenditure survey 1970–1977, J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 146(1) (1983), 33–61.
Bhalla, S.: Imagine There's No Country: Poverty, Inequality and Growth in the Era of Globalization, Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, 2002.
Bourguignon, F. and Morrisson, C.: Inequality among world citizens: 1820–1992, American Economic Review 92(4) (2002), 727–744.
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Urban Family Budgets and Comparative Indexes for Selected Urban Areas, U.S. Department of Labor, 1981.
Census Bureau: Poverty in the United States: 2001, Current Population Report P60-219, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 2001.
Census Bureau: Current population survey – design and methodology, Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 2002.
Chakravarty, S.R. and Eichhorn, W.: Measurement of income inequality: Observed versus true data, In: W. Eichhorn (ed.), Models and Measurement of Welfare and Inequality, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.
Chesher, A. and Schluter, C.: Welfare measurement and measurement error, Review of Economic Studies 69 (2002), 357–378.
Cowell, F.A. and Victoria-Feser, M.: Robustness of inequality measures, Econometrica 64 (1996), 77–101.
Deming, W.E.: On a probability mechanism to attain an economic balance between the resultant error of response and the bias of nonresponse, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 48 (1953), 743–772.
Eichhorn, W., Funke, H. and Richter, W.F.: Tax progression and inequality of income distribution, J. Mathematical Economics 13 (1984), 127–131.
Friar, M.E. and Leonard, H.B.: Variations in cost of living across states, Taubman Center for State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School, Harvard University, 1998.
Groves, R.E. and Couper, M.P.: Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys, Wiley, New York, 1998.
Hansen, L.P.: Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators, Econometrica 50(4) (1982), 1029–1054.
Holt, D. and Elliot, D.: Methods of weighting for unit nonresponse, The Statistician 40 (1991), 333–342.
Korinek, A., Mistiaen, J. and Ravallion, M.: An econometric method of correcting for unit nonresponse bias in surveys, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, 2004, forthcoming.
Lillard, L., Smith, J.P. and Welch, F.: What do we really know about wages? The importance of nonreporting and census imputation, J. Political Economy 94(3) (1986), 489–506.
Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B.: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Wiley, New York, 1987.
Nijman, T. and Verbeek, M.: Nonresponse in panel data: The impact on estimates of a life cycle consumption function, J. Applied Econometrics 7 (1992), 243–257.
Peracchi, F.: Econometrics, Wiley, New York, 2001.
Ravallion, M.: Poverty rankings using noisy data on living standards, Economics Letters 45 (1994), 481–485.
Ravallion, M.: Should poverty measures be anchored to the national accounts?, Economic and Political Weekly 34 (2000, August 26), 3245–3252.
Ravallion, M.: Measuring aggregate welfare in developing countries: How well do national accounts and surveys agree?, Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (2002), 645–652.
Sala-i-Martin, X.: The world distribution of income (estimated from individual country distributions), NBER Working Paper No. W8933, 2002.
Scott, K. and Steele, D.: Measuring welfare in developing countries: Living standards measurement study surveys, In: Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries, UN Statistical Division, 2004, forthcoming.
Van Praag, B., Hagenaars, A. and Van Eck, W.: The influence of classification and observation errors on the measurement of income inequality, Econometrica 51 (1983), 1093–1108.
Martin Ravallion: Corresponding author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Korinek, A., Mistiaen, J.A. & Ravallion, M. Survey nonresponse and the distribution of income. J Econ Inequal 4, 33–55 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-005-1089-4
- income distribution
- poverty and inequality measurement
- survey nonresponse