Advertisement

Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 249–266 | Cite as

Estimating dual headed time in food production with implications for SNAP benefit adequacy

  • Wen YouEmail author
  • George C. Davis
Article

Abstract

Intrahousehold resource allocations have important implications for policies targeted at household resources and thus household welfare. Recent literature has shown, for single headed households, that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits may be inadequate to reach a nutritious diet due to a “time deficit” gap in food production. This paper first develops a simple theoretically based time adjustment multiplier to address this benefit inadequacy for single and dual headed households. A method is then developed for estimating spousal time in food production with limited data. The estimated time deficit gap and time adjustment multiplier are smaller for dual headed households than single headed households. For single headed households, the time adjusted benefits are about $107 per household per week higher than the unadjusted benefits. For dual headed households, ignoring the spousal time contribution, the time adjusted benefits are about $73 per household per week higher than the unadjusted benefits. However, by including the spousal time contribution, this benefit shortfall is reduced by about $50. These findings demonstrate the importance of taking into account intrahousehold time allocation in evaluating the adequacy of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.

Keywords

Food Production Time SNAP Dual-headed households 

JEL Code

D04 I32 I38 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was provided in part by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station and the Hatch Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alvarez, B., & Miles, D. (2003). Gender effect on housework allocation: evidence from Spanish two-earner couples. Journal of Population Economics, 16(2), 227–242.Google Scholar
  2. Apps, P. F. (2004). Gender, time use, and models of the household. Policy research working papers, World Bank.  https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3233.
  3. Apps, P. F., & Rees, R. (1996). Labour supply, household production, and intra-family welfare distribution. Journal of Public Economics, 60, 199–219.Google Scholar
  4. Argyrous, G., & Rahman, S. (2017). How does paid work affect who does the childcare? An analysis of the time use of Australian couples. Review of Economics of the Household, 15(2), 383–398.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493–517.Google Scholar
  6. Bloemen, H. G., Pasqua, S., & Stancanelli, E. G. (2010). An empirical analysis of the time allocation of Italian couples: are they responsive? Review of Economics of the Household, 8, 345–369.Google Scholar
  7. Buntin, M. B., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2004). Too much ado about two-part models and transformation? Comparing methods of modeling Medicare expenditures. Journal of Health Economics, 23(3), 525–542.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Occupational employment statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
  9. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). American Time Use Survey 2009–2012. Washington, DC: ATUS.Google Scholar
  10. Caswell, J. A. & Yaktine, A. L. eds. (2013). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: examining the evidence to define benefit adequacy. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cawley, J., & Liu, L. (2012). Maternal employment and childhood obesity: a search for mechanisms in time use data. Economics & Human Biology, 10(4), 352–364.Google Scholar
  12. Children’s Health Watch (2012). Policy recommendations. http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/page/PolicyRecs.
  13. Chiswick, C. U. (1982). The value of a housewife’s time. The Journal of Human Resources, 17(3), 413–425.Google Scholar
  14. Connelly, R., & Kimmel, J. (2009). Spousal influences on parents’ non-market time choices. Review of Economics of the Household, 7, 361–394. 10.1007/s11150-009-9060-y.Google Scholar
  15. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, G. C., & You, W. (2010a). The time cost of food at home: general and food stamp participant profiles. Applied Economics, 42(20), 2537–2552.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, G. C., & You, W. (2010b). The thrifty food plan is not thrifty when labor cost is considered. Journal of Nutrition, 140, 854–857.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, G. C., & You, W. (2011). Not enough money or not enough time to satisfy the TFP: a cost difference approach for estimating a money-time threshold. Food Policy, 36(2), 101–107.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, G. C., & You, W. (2013). Estimates of returns to scale, elasticity of substitution, and the Thrifty Food Plan meal poverty rate from a direct household meal production function. Food Policy, 43, 204–212.Google Scholar
  20. Donni, O. (2008). Labor supply, home production, and welfare comparisons. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1720–1737.Google Scholar
  21. Dow, W., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Choosing between and interpreting the Heckit and two-part models for corner solutions. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 4, 5–18.Google Scholar
  22. Fey-Yensan, N., English, C., Pacheco, H. E., Belyea, M., & Schuler, D. (2013). Elderly Food Stamp participants are different from eligible nonparticpants by level of nutrition risk but not nutrient intake. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 103(1), 103–107.Google Scholar
  23. FNS (2014). Measuring the effect of SNAP participation on food security. http://www.fns.usda.gov/measuring-effect-snap-participation-food-security-0. Accessed 2 Nov 2015.
  24. Food Research and Action Center (2013). A review of strategies to bolster SNAP’s role in improving nutrition as well as food security. http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SNAPstrategies.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2015.
  25. Gronau, R (1986). Home production—a survey. In O. Ashenfelter, & R. Layard (Eds.), Handbook for Labor Economics (vol. I, Chapter 4). New York, NY: Elsevier. .Google Scholar
  26. Gundersen, C. & Ziliak, J. P. (2014). Childhood food insecurity in the US: trends, causes, and policy options. The Future of Children, 24(2), 1–19..Google Scholar
  27. Hammermesh, D. S. (2008). Direct estimates of household production. Economics Letters, 98, 31–34.Google Scholar
  28. Hawrylyshyn, O (1976). The value of household services: a survey of empirical estimates. Review of Income and Wealth, 22(2), 101–103.Google Scholar
  29. Jolliffe, D., Gundersen, C., Thiehen, L., & Winicki, J. (2005). Food stamp benefits and child poverty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87, 569–581.Google Scholar
  30. Leung, C. W., Ding, E. L., Catalano, P. J., Villamor, E., Rimm, E. B., & Willett, W. C. (2012). Dietary intake and dietary quality of low-income adults in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 1, 2, 3. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 96(5), 977–988.Google Scholar
  31. Machlup, F. (1957). Professor Hicks’ revision of demand theory. American Economic Review, 47(1), 119–135.Google Scholar
  32. Manning, W. G., Duan, N., & Rogers, W. H. (1987). Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics, 35(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
  33. McCloskey, D. N., & Ziliak, S. T. (1996). The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
  34. Mullahy, J. (1998). Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health economics. Journal of Health Economics, 17(3), 247–281.Google Scholar
  35. Puhani, P. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 4(1), 53–68.Google Scholar
  36. Rose, D. (2007). Food stamps, the Thrifty Food Plan, and meal preparation: the importance of the time dimension for US nutrition policy. Journal of Nutrition and Education Behavior, 39(4), 226–232.Google Scholar
  37. Stewart, J. (2009). Tobit, or Not Tobit? U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Working Paper 432. http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec090100.pdf.
  38. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2017). Eating and health module. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/eating-and-health-module-atus/.
  39. United States Department of Agriculture (2015). USDA food plans: cost of food report. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodPlansCostofFood/reports.
  40. You, W., Zhang, G., Davy, B. M., Carlson, A., & Lin, B. H. (2009). Food consumed away from home can be a part of a healthy and affordable diet. The Journal of Nutrition, 139, 1994–1999.Google Scholar
  41. You, W., & Davis, G. C. (2011). Childhood overweight: does quality of parental childcare time matter? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32(2), 219–232.Google Scholar
  42. Zhang, J., & Yen, S. T. (2017). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and food insecurity among families with children. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39(1), 52–64.Google Scholar
  43. Ziol-Guest, K. M., Dunifon, R. E., & Kalil, A. (2013). Parental employment and children’s body weight: mothers, others, and mechanisms. Social Science & Medicine, 95, 52–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and ExerciseVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations