The Impact of Food Stamps on Food Expenditures: Rejection of the Traditional Model

Senauer, Benjamin; Young, Nathan P.

doi:10.2307/1241647

Cited by 46 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other WIC-eligible 0·190 0·171 0·019 Salathe (61) PNP CEX-D Eligible 0·3625 0·061 0·302 Salathe (61) PNP CEX-D Eligible 0·220 0·083 0·137 Salathe (62) PNP CEX-D Eligible 0·233 0·0614 0·172 Senauer and Young (63) DR PSID Part. 0·264 0·073 0·191 Senauer and Young (63) DR PSID Part.…”

Section: Drmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The potential impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) restrictions on expenditures: a systematic review

Cuffey¹,

Beatty²,

Harnack³

2015

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To systematically review the potential impact of reducing the set of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-eligible foods (e.g. not allowing purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits) on expenditures for restricted foods. Design: The impact on food expenditures of a $US 1 reduction in available SNAP benefits can be used to estimate the impact of restrictions on SNAP-eligible foods. An electronic search of EconPapers, AgEcon Search, EconLit, WorldCat, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PubMed and NALDC, and a snowball search were conducted to obtain a sample of studies up to March 2015 that estimate the impacts of SNAP and other income on household food expenditures. The studies were classified according to study population, study design and whether they attempted to correct for major study design biases. Setting: Estimates were extracted from fifty-nine published and unpublished studies. Subjects: US households. Results: Fifty-nine studies were found, yielding 123 estimates of the impact of SNAP benefits on food expenditures and 117 estimates of the difference in impacts between SNAP benefits and other income. Studies correcting for or mitigating study design biases had less estimate variation. Estimates indicate that expenditures on the restricted item would decrease by $US 1·6 to $US 4·8 if $US 10 of SNAP benefits would have otherwise been spent, with a median overall impact of $US 3. Conclusions: The present literature suggests that restrictions on SNAP-eligible items may result in a small but potentially meaningful decrease in SNAP expenditures for restricted items. Further research is needed to evaluate whether this would translate into improvements in diet quality. Some studies have shown that participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) suffer more from obesity than non-participants (1,2) , possibly due to poor diet quality (3) . Policy proposals to address these issues typically consist of either incentivizing healthier food options (4) or restricting the set of foods that can be bought with benefits (5) . The effectiveness and impact of restrictions, however, is a subject of considerable debate. Whether restrictions will actually lead to a decrease in purchasing and consumption of restricted foods depends on how much a decrease in SNAP purchasing power leads to a corresponding decrease in food expenditures. An individual may simply decide to offset the decrease in SNAP purchasing power by using other income to purchase any restricted items. Thus, the extent to which SNAP participants are willing to substitute other income for SNAP income determines the ability of restrictions to reduce purchasing of restricted foods.Over fifty studies, appearing between 1974 and 2014 and using a variety of methods, have estimated the extent of this substitution. However, the most recent review of this literature included studies only up to 2001 (6) . Additionally, that review as well as earlier reviews (7)(8)(9) did not undertake a comprehensive search...

show abstract

Section: Drmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…0·264 0·073 0·191 Senauer and Young (63) DR PSID Part. 0·327 0·050 0·277 Smallwood and Blaylock (64) DR NFCS-LI Eligible 0·233 0·099 0·134 West (65) DR CEX-D All 0·470 0·098* 0·372 West (65) DR CEX-D Part.…”

Section: Drmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) restrictions on expenditures: a systematic review

Cuffey¹,

Beatty²,

Harnack³

2015

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, these two theories focus on analyzing the relationship between food expenditure and food stamps for the poor. According to the Neoclassical theory, in-kind transfer program will have the same outcomes as cash-transfer as long as the participant lives in marginal areas (Hoynes & Schanzenbach 2009;Senauer & Young 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of in-kind transfer to household’s budget proportion: Evidence from early reformation in Indonesia

Girik-Allo¹,

Rahayu²,

Sukartini³

2016

JEBAV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results suggest that parents somehow earmark child benefit on child related costs. For low income households, Moffitt (1989), Devaney and Moffitt (1991), Senauer and Young (1986), Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009), Kaushal and Gao (2011) and Beatty et al (2011) study the effect of a particular type of in-kind transfers -food stamps -on food expenditures and find mixed evidence. 8…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Consumers Use Gift Certificates

Felsö

Soetevent

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

November 27, 2013 AbstractWe survey 1,050 consumers who have just redeemed one or more open loop gift certificates to learn whether they view gift certificate income, cash gifts and non-gift income as substitutes. We find that the majority (83%) of recipients spends the certificates in the same way as cash. The other respondents (17%) bought an item they would not have bought otherwise but adjustments in their shopping pattern do not seem to result from constraints in redeeming the certificates: 80% all respondents in this group says they have used the certificate to buy an item they really love to have. While inconsistent with standard microeconomic demand theory, this behavior can be explained by narrow bracketing: In spending gift certificates, these consumers consider a limited choice set of nice, personal items. Our data show that females are more likely to narrow bracket gift certificate income and that positive reciprocity towards the giver induces narrow bracketing in case the giver is a household member who suggests to buy a particular item using the ceritificate. Previous studies have found that both giving in-kind gifts (Waldfogel, 1993) as giving gift cards (Offenberg, 2007) entail a welfare loss of 10-30 percent when compared to giving cash. We find that the welfare effects of open loop gift certificates among users are limited: The consumption of broad bracketing consumers is unaffected and narrow bracketing consumers seem to value the possibility to separate gift certificate income from other income sources.JEL classification: D11, D12, D31, H31

show abstract

The Impact of Food Stamps on Food Expenditures: Rejection of the Traditional Model

Cited by 46 publications

References 16 publications

The potential impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) restrictions on expenditures: a systematic review

The potential impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) restrictions on expenditures: a systematic review

Impacts of in-kind transfer to household’s budget proportion: Evidence from early reformation in Indonesia

How Consumers Use Gift Certificates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About