The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Household Surveys

  • Duncan Thomas
Reference work entry


Household surveys play a pivotal role in empirical economics. Cross-section and longitudinal surveys are regularly conducted worldwide. A description of survey design and sampling methods provides the foundation for discussing survey errors. These include errors associated with sampling, survey coverage and non-response (which includes attrition from panel surveys), and errors of observation or measurement. In recent years, surveys have tended to become more complex and broader in scope with many reaching beyond measuring economic choices, constraints and outcomes. This trend will likely continue and exciting technological innovations in survey methods and implementation promise to revolutionize the field.


Bootstrap Clustering Cohort survey Consumer expenditure Coverage error Cross-section surveys Demographic surveys Engel’s Law Fertility surveys Health surveys Household production Household surveys Human capital Jackknife Longitudinal (panel) surveys Non-observational and observational errors Probability sampling Sampling error Synthetic panels 

JEL Classifications

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bowley, A.L. 1926. Measurement of precision attained in sampling. Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique 22(Suppl. to Livre 1): 6–62.Google Scholar
  2. Butz, W.P., and J. DaVanzo. 1975. The Malaysian family life survey: Summary report. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, D. 1795. The state of labourers in husbandry stated and considered. Bath.Google Scholar
  4. Deming, W.E. 1950. Some theory of sampling. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Ducpétiaux, E. 1855. Budgets économiques des classes ouvrières en Belgique. Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, G., S. Hofferth, and F. Stafford. 2004. Evolution and change in family in come and wealth: the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics 1968–2000 and beyond. In A telescope on society: Survey research and social science at the University of Michigan and beyond, ed. J. House, T. Juster, and R. Kahn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eden, F.M. 1797. The state of the poor. London: J. Davis.Google Scholar
  8. Efron, B. 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans. Philadelphia: SIAM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engel, E. 1857. Die Productions-und Consumptions verhältnisse des Königreichs Sachsen. Zeitschrift des Statistischen Büreaus des Königlich Sächsischen Ministerium des Innern 8(9), 22 November. Repr. in Bulletin de I’Institut International de la Statistique 9(1985): 1–54.Google Scholar
  10. Evenson, R.E. 1978. Time allocation in rural Philippine households. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, R.A. 1935. The design of experiments. London: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  12. Groves, R.M. 1989. Survey errors and survey costs. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heckman, J.J. 1978. Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica 46: 931–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber, P.J. 1967. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 4: 221–233.Google Scholar
  15. Hurd, M.D., D. McFadden, H. Chand, L. Gan, A. Merrill, and M. Roberts. 1998. Consumption and saving balances of the elderly: experimental evidence on survey response bias. In Frontiers in the economics of aging, ed. D. Wise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kaier, A.N. 1895. Observations et expériences concernant des dénombrements représentatifs. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute 9(Livre 2): 176–183.Google Scholar
  17. Mahalanobis, P.C. 1940. Recent experiments in statistical sampling in the Indian Statistical Institute. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 109, 329–378.Google Scholar
  18. Neyman, J. 1934. On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 97: 558–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenbaum, P.R., and D.B. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walker, T.S., and J.G. Ryan. 1990. Village and household economies in India’s semi-arid tropics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Yates, F. 1935. Complex experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Suppl. 2, 181–247.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duncan Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.