The Indiana Jones of Economics, Part III

JensenRobert Jensen

Over the last two days, Robert Jensen has described his hunt for the ever-elusive Giffen good. Like all action adventure stories, this one has a happy ending. Jensen then goes on to explain the important implications of his findings for food policy in the developing world.

Raiders of the Lost Arc Elasticity, Part III
By Robert Jensen

What had gone wrong? A simple, human flaw called stupidity (mine).

I had coded our price change variable in the wrong direction (a price reduction was coded as a price increase — a negative price decline). So the data was in fact telling us the exact opposite of what we thought — we had indeed found a positive arc price elasticity of demand. The Giffen good.

In fact, we sort of found two Giffen goods. The evidence that rice was a Giffen good in Hunan was very strong; the evidence for wheat in Gansu was a bit weaker. But it turns out that our experimental design in Gansu had a flaw (we subsidized wheat flour, whereas many people purchased prepared wheat foods like noodles, so our subsidy didn’t affect them). And many of our Gansu households didn’t fit the Giffen conditions well; when we focused on households that did, the evidence of Giffen behavior was stronger.

In the end, it’s funny that people have looked in crazy places for Giffen behavior (fermented whale bile, anyone?), and it turns out it could be found in the most widely consumed food in the most populous nation in the history of humanity — rice in China. But, it turned up exactly where theory predicted it would. And the Giffen conditions (poor households with simple diets) are widespread in developing countries.

We’re sure more cases could be found, now that it’s clearer where and how to look for them.

The Giffen effect is an important part of economic thought, history, and pedagogy. And along the way, we had produced some new theoretical predictions about consumption behavior that the data supported — so that was good for the economics side of things.

But it turns out the Giffen story also has some important, real-world implications for public policy that matter much more.

Many low-income countries use consumer price subsidies or price controls to improve or protect the nutrition of the poor. For example, both India and Egypt spend about 1 percent of their G.D.P. subsidizing basic foods such as rice and wheat, making them among the largest forms of social assistance for the poor in both countries.

But critics often attack such policies on several fronts. The biggest concern is that they distort market signals, i.e., how price reflects scarcity. For example, high oil prices tell us that demand is high relative to supply. If we subsidize the price of oil, we’re getting rid of the market signal that tells us to conserve or discover new ways to use less oil, as well as the incentives to use or develop new alternative fuel sources or technologies.

Price subsidies are also criticized because they often lead to shortages, smuggling, and black market activity — or in practice, disproportionately benefit the poor the least.

But subsidies enjoy significant political and popular support because it is believed they at least protect the nutrition of the poor. This is especially the case when comparing subsidies to other forms of welfare, like cash payments, since people worry that the poor may spend the cash on things other than food, or at least may not use the money in a way that improves their nutrition.

But when we subsidized the price of rice and wheat, people consumed less of them, not more.

And in a follow-up paper, we show that when you take together all the consumption substitutions people make, our large subsidies did not improve nutrition at all.

In fact, in Hunan nutrition actually declined in response to the subsidy. In Gansu, the effect on nutrition was essentially zero. And our sample included only the very poorest households, malnourished by international standards and earning much less than a dollar per person per day — i.e. the exact group whose nutrition subsidies are intended to improve.

Of course, households that got the subsidies were still better off, because we increased their purchasing power. But at the end of the day, you can’t dictate what people eat, and they can act in ways that make them happier but may reduce or even reverse the intended consequences of government policy like subsidies (or price controls, or rations, or in fact anything else designed to improve nutrition).

Now, we’re absolutely, definitely not saying that we should therefore do nothing to help the poor. Quite the opposite. And that’s especially the case in light of recent, dramatic increases in world food prices — which have been much larger than the price changes we analyzed and which have affected a wide range of foods, not just a single food like we studied.

In fact, it would be immoral to do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

But while there may be some reasons to prefer subsidies as a form of welfare, it’s time to abandon the long-standing presumption that they are the best policy because they improve nutrition.

So, hidden inside this old economics mystery, the real prize was an observation relevant to real world policy issues. We just hope it doesn’t end up in a crate, hidden away in some warehouse like the Lost Ark …

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 41

View All Comments »
  1. jonathan says:

    BTW, the end of this post stands in stark contrast to the arguments offered elsewhere by this blog about the gas tax. This poster speaks of morality though the effect is small and the other poster speaks of objective price changes.

    Given the role of rice in the culture of Hunan, did you control for consumption being related to status? In other words, the Hermes bag issue. Did the ability to consume rice as prices rose confer status? A sense of social belonging? Was rice consumption viewed in those areas as a requirement of being part of that society in that place? I emphasize place because people in Shanghai, more connected to global culture, might be less rooted in cultural traditions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. jooboy says:

    so the price of rice increases, and nothing else does? i would think that prices of other foodstuffs would increase if rice prices increase.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Bill Harshaw says:

    Not an economist and Giffen goods are counter-intuitive and very confusing, but I am interested in agricultural programs. So–what do these results say about food stamps in the U.S.? Are they causing poor nutrition?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Tam Chee Hong says:

    But wouldn’t there be a maximum price before the people switch to cheaper alternatives to get their nutrition?

    During WW2, when rice is scarce and expensive, the Chinese and neighboring countries ate substitutes like sweet potatoes and tapioca.

    Does rice still qualifies as giffen goods when, after a certain price (Assuming the price is when the poor spend all their money on rice, no meat, and still would not get the required nutrients), it will start to resemble normal price and demand curve?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  5. Doug says:

    Congratulations. You will now be immortalized by a paragraph in every introductory economics textbook.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Doug (again) says:

    Good work. Still, I refuse to give up my giffen nominee – college tuition.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/education/12tuition.html

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  7. Simon says:

    By subsidising rice you were increasing the incomes of these individuals in China, as they can now use the subsidies to purchase the rice and transfer the cash they save from the subsidies to purchase other food stuffs.

    Just because you found that by subsidising rice (ie reducing the price of rice) the demand for rice fell, this does not mean that a price increase in rice will induce increased demand.

    Is this not more of a case of rice being an inferior good, with incomes rising and relative prices of rice falling they found themseleves able to purchase new goods that were substitutes for rice?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
  8. cg says:

    I’m a bit confused by the conclusions. The way this concept of a giffen good had been presented was to say that when the price of rice increased, that people bought more rice and less of other, still more expensive foods.

    In saying that nutrition stayed the same or declined in response to a subsidy, the author seems to conclude that then subsidies are a bad idea. It seems possible that these poor households, when suddenly faced with the prospect of greater buying power, rebudgeted their funds – and used their money on something other than food, something also important to them.

    It seems that giving poor people the ability to spend less money on food would allow them to improve their lives in some way. I’m not convinced that it matters that they don’t use the funds for food.

    Could the people in the study have looked at the money that they saved when buying subsidized rice as found money and used it to splurge on something? It seems that there might be a psychological component to the response of suddenly perceiving a savings on something, as opposed to entering an unfamiliar market, and finding that the relative prices of things were different.

    Just a few thoughts.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0