| Literature DB >> 21423323 |
Rik Linssen, Luuk van Kempen, Gerbert Kraaykamp.
Abstract
Using data on 697 individuals from 375 rural low income households in India, we test expectations on the effects of relative income and conspicuous consumption on subjective well-being. The results of the multi-level regression analyses show that individuals who spent more on conspicuous consumption report lower levels of subjective well-being. Surprisingly an individual's relative income position does not affect feelings of well-being. Motivated by positional concerns, people do not passively accept their relative rank but instead consume conspicuous goods to keep up with the Joneses. Conspicuous consumption always comes at the account of the consumption of basic needs. Our analyses point at a positional treadmill effect of the consumption of status goods.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21423323 PMCID: PMC3032207 DOI: 10.1007/s11205-010-9635-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Indic Res ISSN: 0303-8300
Definitions and descriptive statistics
| Variable | Definition |
| Mean | St. Dev. | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective well-being | Item: “How happy are you with your life in general?” 5 point scale, ranging from -1-very unhappy- to -5-very happy | 697 | 3.369 | 1.21 | 1 | 5 |
| Household level characteristics | ||||||
| Absolute consumptiona | Natural logarithm of all items bought during last week, all homegrown consumption during last 12 months, durable goods bought last year and replacement value of durables, per capita | 398 | 7.31 | 1.08 | 3.58 | 10.52 |
| Conspicuous consumption | Durable goods (jewellery, watches, mobile phones etc.), social and religious expenses, recreation expenses and last five years dowry expenses as percentage of a household’s total consumption | 398 | 0.08 | 0.018 | 0.056 | 0.12 |
| Village level characteristics | ||||||
| Average consumption in village | Absolute consumption, aggregated average per village | 19 | 7.3 | 0.53 | 6.71 | 8.58 |
| Cross level interaction terms | ||||||
| Absolute consumption * Average consumption in village | Included as a proxy for relative consumption | |||||
| Control variables | ||||||
| Income aspirations | What household level income would you consider to be a good income? “Amount in Indian rupees (measured at the household level)” | 398 | 3344.33 | 1219.42 | 1,000 | 10,000 |
| Health | Number of days respondent missed primary daily activities due to sickness during last 4 weeks | 697 | 0.89 | 2.69 | 0 | 30 |
| Age | Respondent’s age. Continuous measurement | 697 | 45.43 | 11.61 | 20 | 90 |
| Education | Measured in full-time years of education | 697 | 3.51 | 3.6 | 0 | 15 |
| Caste | Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe | 370 | 53.08% | |||
| Backward caste | 236 | 33.86% | ||||
| General caste | 134 | 19.23% | ||||
| Religion | Hindu | 610 | 87.52% | |||
| Muslim | 26 | 3.73% | ||||
| Christian | 59 | 8.46% | ||||
| Employment status | Employed | 506 | 72.60% | |||
| Unemployed | 191 | 27.40% | ||||
| Marital status | Married | 664 | 95.27% | |||
| Divorced/Widowed/Single | 32 | 4.59% | ||||
| Gender | Female | 350 | 50.22% | |||
| Male | 347 | 49.78% | ||||
aOur survey provided us with very detailed information on the household’s expenses. We used the consumption categories food consumption, food produces and consumed at home, non-food consumption and the replacement values of durable goods owned. We encountered several missing values which we imputed using multiple imputation methods
Multilevel regression analysis subjective well-being on relative and conspicuous consumption
| Model 0 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Se | B | Se | B | Se | B | Se | |
| Intercept | 3.386*** | 0.094 | 2.808*** | 0.392 | 1.3202 | 5.171 | 0.504 | 5.026 |
| Household level characteristics | ||||||||
| Absolute consumption | 10.729** | 5.837 | −15.873 | 65.353 | −11.618 | 63.666 | ||
| Conspicuous consumption | −0.481*** | 0.213 | −0.459*** | 0.214 | −0.353** | 0.215 | ||
| Aspirations | 0.044*** | 0.014 | ||||||
| Aspirations squared | −0.001*** | 0.001 | ||||||
| Village level characteristics | ||||||||
| Average village level consumption | 24.203 | 71.261 | 32.870 | 68.942 | ||||
| Cross level interaction terms | ||||||||
| Absolute consumption * Average consumption in village | 3.066 | 8.892 | 2.354 | 8.663 | ||||
| Individual level characteristics | ||||||||
| Scheduled caste/tribe | −0.019 | 0.201 | ||||||
| Backward caste | 0.011 | 0.192 | ||||||
| General caste | ref. | ref. | ||||||
| Missed days due to health | −0.028** | 0.016 | ||||||
| Age | −0.008** | 0.005 | ||||||
| Education | 0.005 | 0.015 | ||||||
| Married | ref. | ref. | ||||||
| Divorced/widowed/single | 0.111 | 0.219 | ||||||
| Hindu | ref. | ref. | ||||||
| Muslim | 0.410 | 0.340 | ||||||
| Christian | −0.495** | 0.248 | ||||||
| Employed | ref. | ref. | ||||||
| Unemployed | −0.165* | 0.124 | ||||||
| Women | ref. | ref. | ||||||
| Men | −0.322*** | 0.112 | ||||||
| Variance components | ||||||||
| σvillage | 0.226 | 0.076 | 0.340 | 0.082 | 0.235 | 0.075 | 0.153 | 0.088 |
| σhousehold | 0.350 | 0.110 | 0.382 | 0.102 | 0.384 | 0.101 | 0.392 | 0.098 |
| σindividual | 1.103 | 0.043 | 1.101 | 0.043 | 1.101 | 0.043 | 1.078 | 0.042 |
| −2loglikelihood | 2,330.744 | 2,208.912 | 2,185.721 | 2,203.751 | ||||
| Number of villages | 19 | |||||||
| Number of households | 375 | |||||||
| Number of individuals | 697 | |||||||
* p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01