Soci - 2014 - Ballester - Velazco - Rigall - Great Recession Consumption

8/16/2019 Soci - 2014 - Ballester - Velazco - Rigall - Great Recession Consumption

1/29

1 3

Social Indicators Research

An International and Interdisciplinary

Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement

ISSN 0303-8300

Soc Indic Res

DOI 10.1007/s11205-014-0760-1

Effects of the Great Recession onImmigrants’ Household Consumption in

Spain

Ramon Ballester, Jackeline Velazco &

Ricard Rigall-I-Torrent


2/29

1 3

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.


3/29

Effects of the Great Recession on Immigrants’ Household

Consumption in Spain

Ramon Ballester • Jackeline Velazco • Ricard Rigall-I-Torrent

Accepted: 7 September 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The massive influx of immigrants has played an essential role in the high

growth of the Spanish economy during the period 1997–2007. The severe economic crisis

that began in 2008 is characterized by high unemployment and reductions in consumption

by households. This article uses the Household Budget Survey to empirically estimate

changes in the consumption patterns of households as a result of the economic crisis,

analyzing whether differential impacts exist according to the nationality of the household’s

main breadwinner. Our results show that households with non-Spanish main breadwinnershave lower levels of pre-crisis consumption, greater decrease in consumption because of

the crisis and greater inequality in consumption levels.

Keywords Consumption Great Recession Spain Immigrants

1 Introduction

Immigration has played an essential role in the evolution of the Spanish economy in the

last 15 years. The massive influx of immigrants contributed to the high growth of the

Spanish economy during the period 1997–2007. The flow of young and middle-aged

foreign labour force was sufficient to cover the labour needs of labour-intensive sectors

with low qualifications, while it temporarily guaranteed the viability of the Spanish public

pension system. Immigrant workers have been concentrated in sectors such as construction,

R. Ballester (&) R. Rigall-I-TorrentDepartament d’Economia, Facultat de Ciències Econòmiques i Empresarials, Universitat de Girona,

Campus Montilivi, 17071 Girona, Catalonia, Spain

e-mail: [email protected]

J. Velazco

Departamento de Economı́a, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria No 1801,

San Miguel, Lima, Peru

1 3

Soc Indic Res

DOI 10.1007/s11205-014-0760-1


4/29

domestic service, hotels/restaurants or agriculture and have recorded higher levels of

temporality and lower wages than natives (Laparra 2011; Oliver 2012).

The severe economic crisis that began in late 2007, named the Great Recession, is

characterised by high unemployment. The most affected groups are non-European citizens,

the young, low-skilled workers and the long term unemployed. In addition, credit con-straints have severely affected households’ capacity to borrow money in order to maintain

levels of consumption. Hence, it is expected that families have modified their levels and

composition of consumption. In fact, changing consumption patterns is one of the strate-

gies adopted by households to cope with the negative effects of the crisis (Martı́nez 2010;

Velazco and Ballester 2010).

Taking as reference the context of the crisis and the importance of immigration in the

Spanish economy and society, the aim of this article is to identify changes in the con-

sumption patterns of households produced during the Great Recession, analysing whether

there are differential impacts according to the nationality of the main breadwinner of the

household. The analysis is performed for the period 2006–2011, and in particular for

3 years: 2006, 2008 and 2011. This allows us to compare the changes in consumption

patterns over a time of economic growth in 2006, with another when the crisis began, in

2008, and a third of severe crisis, 2011. This article includes both descriptive and

econometric analyses.

The main database used in the analysis is the Household Budget Survey (HBS). This

survey provides annual information on the nature and purpose of consumer spending. It

also contains variables that reflect the main characteristics of the households in the sample,

allowing us to analyse consumption patterns of immigrant households in Spain. Specifi-

cally, the variable used in this article to identify immigrants is the nationality of the mainbreadwinner (Spanish versus non-Spanish and people with dual nationality). To study the

evolution of consumption patterns during the period 2006–2011 changes in real con-

sumption per adult equivalent are studied for 12 expenditure groups.

When analysing the Great Recession, the economic literature has focused on several

aspects, such as the effects of the crisis on household incomes (Avram et al. 2013; Jenkins

et al. 2012; Laparra and Pérez-Eransus 2012) or the changes in consumption behaviour

amongst households in Spain (Martı́nez 2010). But in the economic literature there are no

studies on the effects of the crisis on the consumption of immigrant households in Spain.

Our work aims to fill this gap, focusing on a key effect of the crisis on this vulnerable

group.The article is organised into five sections. The second section discusses the economic

crisis and its impact on the population. The third one identifies both changes in patterns of

household consumption in Spain over a wide period prior to that studied in our article

and the structure and changes in consumption patterns during 2006–2011. The econo-

metric analysis of the determinants of per adult equivalent consumption is carried out in

the fourth section. Finally, the conclusions are presented in the last section.

The main results indicate that one of the key variables explaining changes in con-

sumption patterns is the nationality of the main breadwinner. Compared to native house-

holds, those with non-Spanish or dual nationality main breadwinner show lower levels of pre-crisis consumption, greater decrease in consumption because of the crisis (especially

with respect to the less essential products), as well as greater and rising inequality in

consumption levels.

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


5/29

2 Migration and Economic Crisis

2.1 Theories of International Immigration

Different theoretical approaches, from diverse disciplines, have been developed to explaininternational migration.1 Regarding economics, neoclassical theory provides both macro

and micro approaches. The former focuses on differential wages, employment conditions

and migration costs between countries as leading factors enhancing migration flows (Harris

and Todaro 1970). Alternative macroeconomic approaches are the Keynesian view, based

on employment differentials between countries; the dual labour market theory, that

explains migration as a result of structural labour market conditions in the destination

country and in particular by the interest of local entrepreneurs to minimise labour costs by

hiring cheaper immigrant workers for jobs that the local population do not want to take

(Piore 1979).

The microeconomic neoclassical approach corresponds to a typical model of individual

choice. Under this context, individuals carry out a cost-benefit calculation, taking into

account the expected incomes at the countries of origin and destination as well as immi-

gration costs expecting a positive return as a result of international migration (Borjas 1990;

Massey et al. 1993).

Further developments have changed the focus beyond the individual as unit of analysis.

Therefore, a new economics of migration has found it relevant to focus on the household as

a decision-making unit. This approach highlights the migration action not as a result of an

individual maximising profit decision but as a decision that involves both the migrant and

the rest of their family. An implicit agreement is assumed whereby the family funds thetravelling cost of the migrant member and once they get a new job at the receiving country,

remittances are sent to the family. This strategy is expected to enable a higher family

income and migration of one or more members is a risk-reducing strategy for many

households (Stark and Bloom 1985; Stark 1991). The relative deprivation concept is used

as well to explain international migration. From this standpoint, migrants take into account

relative income differentials towards the reference group in their country of origin when

deciding to move abroad. This means that the poorest households in a community would

have higher chances of moving abroad than middle or higher income groups (Stark and

Taylor 1989).

Another approach is the network theory. Its main emphasis is around the role of family,friendship, ethnic and kinship networks in shaping international migration patterns through

lowering cost and risks of migration as well as increasing the expected net returns (Massey

et al. 1993). Finally, the world system theory explains international migration as a by-

product of the advances of capitalism and global markets, and particular by the core

economies demand for cheaper labour and the surplus of labour in the periphery derived

from increased productivity induced by foreign investment (Wallerstein 1974).

2.2 International Immigration and the Spanish Labour Market

Immigrants have played an important role in the stage of growth before the crisis. Their

number increased from 0.51 to 4.11 million between 2000 and 2008, drawn by economic

growth and labour demand that could not be satisfied because of the insufficient growth of

the local workforce. Moreno and López-Casasnovas (2006) have analysed the main factors

1 A discussion on the relevant theories is found in Massey et al. (1993), Arango (2003) and Bijak (2011).

Effects of the Great Recession on Immigrants’

1 3


6/29

that explain economic migration to Spain from 1994 to 2004, finding that differences in

unemployment rates, poverty levels in the country of origin, knowledge of Spanish, geo-

graphical distance, existence of immigrant networks in Spain and the degree of urbani-

sation in the country of origin matter. The authors conclude that the microeconomic,

Keynesian, dual labour market, world system and network theories are better suited forexplaining migration inflows from developing countries to Spain. Angoitia and Tobes

(2013) describe the factors that can explain the huge immigration inflow that Spain reg-

istered between 2000 and 2008. Economic growth, increased demand for labour, the

regularisation processes and the role played by immigrant communities are underlined by

the authors as the key elements driving immigration inflows to Spain. Hence, microeco-

nomic, Keynesian, new economics of migration and network theories can help to explain

that phenomenon.

This growth of the immigrant population is among the highest in the EU-15 and the

OECD, with a high proportion of non-EU and Latin American immigrants in particular

(Laparra 2011; Mahı́a 2010). Within the Spanish territory, immigrants concentrate in areas

with low unemployment, with high importance of the construction sector and with a large

stock of immigrants (Maza et al. 2013).

The sectors with the largest numbers of immigrants before the crisis were construction,

domestic service, hotels/restaurants and agriculture, sectors requiring low skill lev-

els. Immigrants showed higher activity and greater seasonality, which increased their

vulnerability to changes in the economic cycle. Furthermore, immigrants had lower

incomes than natives, since they had jobs requiring fewer skills, and higher levels of

deprivation (González and Segales 2013; Laparra 2011; Mahı́a 2010).2

Moreover, there is non-economic migration, of people in the EU-15 looking to retire inSpanish territory (González and Segales 2013). Tables 1 and 2 record data about the 25

most important countries of origin of people working in Spain in 2008. They show that

there are clear differences between people migrating to Spain from developing and from

developed countries. Salaries and the share of retired people confirm that people from poor

countries tend to migrate to Spain looking for higher salaries, whereas for richer countries

a higher share of people migrating for retirement is found. It is noteworthy that the

unemployment rate does not seem to play any role in explaining migration flows to Spain.

Hence, microeconomic theories seem to prevail in front of the macroeconomic perspective.

The economic crisis has reduced inflows of immigrants and increased outflows. Those

who return home are mainly the younger and the less resilient, with less dependants andgreater choices in their country of origin (such as the Latin American community) (An-

goitia and Tobes 2013; Baliña et al. 2013; González and Segales 2013; Oliver 2012). Here

again Keynesian, microeconomic and new migration theories seem able to explain inter-

national migration flows.

2.3 Economic Crisis in Spain

The severe crisis affecting the Spanish economy since mid-2008 has its origin in excessive

foreign borrowing linked to the real estate boom and to the improper supervision of theSpanish banking system. In addition, it should be noted that membership to the euro

eliminates the possibility of devaluing the currency as a way to regain competitiveness, and

2 It is noteworthy the large importance of illegal immigration, which reached a maximum of 47 % of the

foreign population in 2005. The Spanish labour market, with a high importance of the shadow economy, and

the inefficient application of immigration laws can explain this phenomenon (Laparra 2011; Mahı́a 2010).

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


7/29

that restrictive policies promoted by the EU to reduce budget deficits have also contributed

to the decline in economic activity (Avram et al. 2013; Jenkins et al. 2012; Laparra and

Pérez-Eransus 2012).

Some data that reflect the intensity of the crisis are the following. Regarding macro-

economic aggregates, the Spanish economy has experienced two stages of recession. The

first spans over seven quarters between the second quarter of 2008 and late 2009. The

second, from mid-2011, spans over nine quarters, until the second quarter of 2013.

The Spanish labour market has been particularly affected by the hard fall in economic

activity. This is especially noteworthy, since the main source of income in 2008 for nearly

two-thirds of households in Spain came from wages (either self-employed or salaried

employee). The unemployment rate has increased from 9.6 % (recorded in the first quarter

of 2008) to 26.0 % (last quarter of 2013), peaking at 27.2 % in the first quarter of

Table 1 Spain and the 25 most

important countries of origin of

people employed in Spain, 2008:

comparison of the monthly aver-

age wage (in euros); unemploy-

ment rate (as % of labour force)

The monthly wage and the

unemployment rate refer to the

country of origin

In bold, the data for Spain the

reference country

Source: ILO, global wage

database; World Bank,unemployment rate

n.a. not available

Country Wage (in euros) Unemployment

rate (%)

Spain 1,800 11.5

AfricaAlgeria 259 11.3

Mali n.a. 8.4

Morocco n.a. 9.6

Nigeria n.a. 7.6

Senegal 337 10.0

Asia

China 236 4.4

Pakistan 64 5.0

Europe

Bulgaria 264 5.6

France 2,758 7.4

Germany 2,327 7.5

Italy 2,099 6.7

Poland 838 7.1

Portugal 1,008 7.6

Romania 478 5.8

United Kingdom 2,576 5.4

Ukraine 232 6.4

Latin America

Argentina 946 7.8

Bolivia 437 2.9

Brazil 668 7.1

Colombia 330 13.2

Cuba 305 1.6

Dominican

Republic

207 14.2

Ecuador 260 6.0

Peru 678 4.5

Venezuela 379 6.9


1 3


8/29

2013. The number of people employed has declined from 20.40 million to 16.76 million (a

decrease of 17.9 %). The decline in employment has been more intense in the case of

foreigners, since the number of employed foreigners has decreased from 2.94 million in the

first quarter of 2008 to only 2.01 in the last quarter of 2013, which implies a reduction of

31.5 %. The unemployment rate of foreigners is currently 36.6 %.3 In this sense, immi-

grants, with higher levels of insecurity, have acted as a collective that has absorbed the

economic shock in the labour market (Laparra 2011).Poverty, deprivation and inequality have been on the rise since the inception of the

depression. The moderate poverty risk has risen by two percentage points since 2007,

Table 2 Spain and the 25 most

important countries of origin of

people employed in Spain, 2008:

comparison of the share of people

over 65 years of age in Spain

(as % of the total population)

The retired people share refers to

people living in Spain by country

of origin

Source: INE, population survey

Country Retired in Spain (in %)

Spain 18.2

Africa

Algeria 6.5Mali 0.1

Morocco 3.9

Nigeria 0.2

Senegal 0.4

Asia

China 1.6

Pakistan 0.9

Europe

Bulgaria 0.8France 11.5

Germany 18.3

Italy 10.2

Poland 1.2

Portugal 7.0

Romania 0.5

United Kingdom 23.0

Ukraine 0.8

Latin AmericaArgentina 6.2

Bolivia 0.4

Brazil 1.4

Colombia 1.8

Cuba 16.5

Dominican Republic 2.0

Ecuador 0.7

Peru 3.7

Venezuela 1.5

3 All data in this section come from the INE (Spanish National Accounts, Quarterly Spanish National

Accounts and Economically Active Population Survey), that shows information about the nationality of the

person, but not of the place where he/she was born.

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


9/29

people making meet ends with great difficulty by seven and a half points and the Gini

coefficient of inequality by three points.

The studies for Spain on the effects of the crisis on household well-being come to

several conclusions. Firstly, in the labour market, and in addition to the increase in the

unemployment rate highlighted above, unemployment is particularly affecting the mainbreadwinners, leading to a significant reduction of households’ income. Secondly, levels of

deprivation, poverty and inequality have increased with the outbreak of the crisis (Ayala

et al. 2010; Laparra and Garcı́a 2010). The groups most affected by the crisis have been the

young (González-Bueno et al. 2012), women, people with low education levels and

immigrants. Moreover, Alegre and Pou (2013) find that job loss by the main breadwinner

reduces household spending and that unemployment benefits do not allow households to

maintain former spending levels.

Furthermore, as Ayala (2013) notes in a study of seven developed countries, both Spain

and Italy are the two cases where households’ disposable income fell between 2007 and

2011, a fact that has not happened in the UK, USA, Germany, France and Sweden. In

addition, Spain shows the most regressive distribution of income, with growth rates sig-

nificantly below average for the lowest percentiles for 2006–2011. Ayala (2013) attributes

this evolution to both changes in the Spanish labour market, through rising unemployment

for the main breadwinners and wage inequality, as well as the limited capacity of redis-

tribution of the Spanish tax and benefits system. Regarding the latter factor, Álvarez et al.

(2013) note that the labour reforms of 2010 and 2012, the decline in the coverage for

unemployment benefits and the reduction of expenditure on active policies have reduced

the capacity of compensation of labour institutions.4

Existing studies on the effects of the crisis on migrants in the labour market show thatforeigners are amongst the most negatively affected groups, since the unemployment rate

in this group has increased more than for nationals, even though there is no negative

discrimination towards them in regard to redundancies (Medina et al. 2010). However,

foreigners are more likely both to be unemployed (Angoitia and Tobes 2013; Álvarez et al.

2013) and to be long-term unemployed (Álvarez et al. 2013). This latter feature appears

with the crisis.5

The most adversely affected group is that of African men, while foreigners with longer

residence period are less likely to be unemployed (Rinken et al. 2012; Angoitia and Tobes

2013). Focusing on young people, it is detected that the negative evolution of the labour

market has affected very similarly both the native and non-native labour force (Observa-torio Permanente Andaluz de las Migraciones 2012).

3 Structure and Changes in the Consumption Patterns of Households in Spain

The previous section of the article has analysed the important role played by immigrants in

the Spanish economy over the last 15 years as providers of labour force as well as the

intense and negative effects of the Great Recession on Spanish households. Against this

4 A different view is suggested by Cantó (2013), who concludes that the Spanish system of benefits and

taxes has seen an increase in its capacity of redistribution between 2005 and 2011, due to increases in

income tax and the emergence of an unemployment allowance for the long-term unemployed (Programa

Prepara).5 Arranz and Garcı́a-Serrano (2013) find that there is a positive wage differential for European immigrants,

which has increased since the beginning of the crisis.


1 3


10/29

background, this section deals with several aspects linked to consumption patterns in

Spain. Firstly, it describes trends on household consumption in Spain over a period of

50 years prior to the Great Recession. Secondly, the article describes the methodology and

the database used in our empirical analysis. Thirdly, and based on empirical data for 2008,

a comparison of main characteristics between immigrant and native households in Spain iscarried out. Fourthly, the evolution of consumption patterns for the whole Spanish pop-

ulation as well as for the native and immigrant population (Spaniards and others) is deeply

analysed. Finally, an analysis of inequality in consumption within both groups (Spaniards

and others) is performed.

3.1 Consumption Patterns of Households in Spain: from 1958 to 2005

When focusing on household expenditure in Spain, interesting patterns are observed

regarding expenditure groups. Table 3 shows the evolution of the average expenditure per

person according to the five old expenditure groups for the country (food, clothing and

footwear, dwelling, household expenditures and miscellaneous) from 1958 to 1996. The

consumption structure is typical of a poor economy, in which most of the household

spending is intended to cover their basic needs. Note how in 1958 households in Spain

earmarked more than 60 % of their spending to food and clothing and footwear. In 1996

that percentage had halved.

Between 1998 and 2005, the share of expenditure on food and beverages continued to

decline, whereas bills and other products show the opposite trends, as depicted in Table 4.

In this table the new twelve expenditure groups (food and non-alcoholic beverages,

alcoholic beverages and tobacco, clothing and footwear, bills, furniture and householdequipment, health, transport, communications, leisure and culture, education, hotels and

restaurants and others) have been used.

3.2 Database and Methodology

The main database used in the analysis is the HBS. This survey was started in January

2006 and provides annual information on the nature and purpose of consumer spend-

ing. The survey provides estimates of annual consumption expenditure for Spain and its

regions. It also contains variables that reflect the main characteristics of the sample

households, the main source of regular income for households, the production branchwhere the main breadwinner works, the type of contract of the breadwinner, as well as age,

nationality or educational level. Therefore, the HBS has variables that allow us to analyse

the consumption patterns of immigrant households in Spain. The sample size is about

24,000 households per year. Each household remains in the sample for two consecutive

years, and every year half of the sample is renewed.

The analysis is performed for the period 2006–2011, particularly for the years 2006,

2008 and 2011. This allows us to study variations in the consumption patterns of house-

holds in Spain over a period of change, since data is collected for a year of economic

growth (2006), the start of the crisis (2008) and a year of severe crisis (2011). We performboth descriptive and econometric analyses. To study the evolution of consumption patterns

during the period 2006–2011, changes in real consumption per adult equivalent are ana-

lysed according to the new twelve groups of consumption. The conversion of the house-

hold data from the nominal level found in the HBS is carried out using the modified

equivalence scale of the OECD and taking into account the data on inflation for each group

provided by the Consumer Price Index (INE, years 2006, 2008 and 2011). The sample is

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


11/29

divided according to occupational category, educational level, nationality (Spanish/non-

Spanish) of the main breadwinner, among other variables.

It should be noted that in our analysis we cannot use the variable ‘‘foreign nationality of the

main breadwinner’’ because of the change of classification recorded in 2011 for people with

Romanian or Bulgarian passports, a fact that does not allow a uniform comparison throughout

the period. The variable used is ‘‘nationality of the main breadwinner’’, which allows us to

distinguish between people with Spanish nationality and people with other nationalities (dual

nationality and foreign nationals). The latter group contains immigrant individuals. To

justify this decision we calculated the correlation coefficient between the variable ‘‘nation-

ality of main breadwinner’’ and ‘‘place of birth of the main breadwinner’’. This correlation is

0.9, indicating that, in practical terms, they include the same information. The variable

‘‘birthplace of the breadwinner’’ is not available for the years 2006 and 2008.

As a part of the econometric approach, a reduced form of consumption function per adult

equivalent (in logs) at the household level is estimated by ordinary least squares (OLS).

3.3 Profile of Immigrants

The 2008 HBS is used to present a profile of the immigrant household head (main

breadwinner) in relation to the native one in Spain. The results, shown in Table 5, suggest

a high degree of commonality in the gender composition, on average, 75 % are men and

Table 3 Evolution of the average expenditure per person according to the old expenditure groups for Spain

(1958–1996), as a percentage of total expenditure

1958 1964 1973/74 1980/81 1985 1990 1996

Food 55.3 48.6 38.0 30.7 29.1 25.8 22.6Clothing and footwear 13.6 14.9 7.7 8.5 10.4 10.1 7.6

Dwelling 5.0 7.4 11.6 15.4 14.9 15.6 20.6

Household expenditures 8.3 9.2 11.1 10.0 9.4 8.8 8.7

Miscellaneous expenditures 17.8 19.9 31.6 35.4 36.2 39.7 40.5

Source: Household Budget Survey

Table 4 Evolution of the aver-

age expenditure per adult equiv-

alent according to the twelveexpenditure groups for Spain

(1998 and 2005), as a percentage

of total expenditure

Source: Household Budget

Survey 1998 and 2005

1998 2005

Food 23.1 20.9

Alcoholic beverages 3.2 2.7

Clothing 9.1 8.7

Bills 11.8 12.7

Furniture 5.9 6.0

Health 3.0 2.9

Transportation 14.9 14.2

Communication 2.4 3.6

Leisure 7.4 8.0

Education 1.7 1.3

Restaurants 11.1 11.1

Other 6.4 8.0


1 3


12/29


13/29

Table 8 depicts how Spaniards and other people (non-Spaniards and dual nationality)

were allocating consumption into the 12 groups of products in 2008.

The main result to be drawn from Table 7 is that the consumption of Spanish house-

holds is significantly higher compared to non-Spaniards and people with dual nationality,

for both total consumption and for different product groups. However, there are three

groups of products that do not follow this pattern. On the one hand, two for which there is

no significant difference in spending: alcohol and tobacco and transportation. On the other

hand, communications spending appears to be significantly higher for non-Spaniards.

Figure 1 shows that the evolution of expenditures of immigrants in major expenditure

groups for the period 2008–2011 has been worse than in the case of Spaniards. A most

marked difference exists for luxury goods, such as leisure or restaurants, while for basic

products such as food, clothing or bills the differences are lower or even in favour of

immigrants.

Finally, the comparison of expenditures at home and away from home of food and

beverages reveals that non-Spaniards have reduced spending in restaurants by a greater

Table 5 Profile of immigrant household-heads in Spain, 2008: comparison with natives in selected

variables

Variable Immigrant household head Native household head

Sex (%)Man 72.6 74.9

Woman 27.4 25.1

Age (average in years) 41 54

Education (%)

No education or primary educ. 17.7 30.9

First cycle of second. educ. 29.5 29.6

Second cycle of second. educ. 29.7 14.5

Higher education 23.1 25.0

Production sector

Services 50.6 54.7

Agriculture 6.8 9.1

Industry 15.3 23.8

Construction 27.3 12.4

Activity sector

Public sector 6.7 24.4

Private sector 93.3 75.6

Relation economic activity

Working 81.4 60.9

Unemployed 10.4 3.6

Retired 6.4 29.8

Other situation 1.8 5.7

Type of job contract

Indefinite 50.1 81.5

Temporary or no contract 49.9 18.5

Total 1,342 20,516

Source: Authors’ calculation based on the 2008 HBS


1 3


14/29

proportion than Spaniards. The ratio of expenditure on food and drinks in restaurants on

total expenditure on food and beverages decreased by an average 1.7 % per year for

Spaniards during the period 2008–2011, while for non-Spaniards and people with dual

nationality it fell by 5.5 %. All these findings show a greater tendency of immigrant

households to reduce less important expenditure.

3.6 Inequalities in Consumption

A final aspect to be discussed in this section is to what extent differences in consumptionwithin the two groups studied (Spaniards and others) are significant. Figure 2 shows,

through a Kernel density function of consumption per adult equivalent in real terms in

2008, that the consumption distribution is more concentrated in the case of non-Spaniards

as well as for those with dual nationality. Furthermore, this group is concentrated around

lower consumption values than Spaniards.

Table 9 allows us observe how inequality in the level of consumption has increased

significantly in the case of individuals of other nationalities, since the value of the Gini

index has risen from 0.259 in 2008 to 0.290 in 2011, while the variation in the case of

Spaniards was virtually nil. From these results it can be concluded that the economic crisisthat began in 2008 has eroded consumption levels and has had a regressive impact for non-

Spaniards.

Table 10 expands the previous analysis and shows the fall in consumption the bottom

two quintiles of other nationalities, which explains the increase in inequality occurred in

this group.

Table 6 Composition and evolution of Spanish household expenditure

2006 2008 2011 Change

2006–2008

Change

2008–2011

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD % p value % p value

Total 16,409 8,897 16,510 8,418 14,963 7,704 0.31 0.469 -3.12 0.000

Food 2,471 1,428 2,433 1,372 2,290 1,321 -0.77 0.016 -1.96 0.000

Alcoholic

beverages

289 427 283 417 227 361 -1.08 0.293 -6.56 0.000

Clothing,

footwear

1,115 1,556 1,071 1,556 904 1,347 -1.97 0.012 -5.21 0.000

Bills 4,302 2,545 4,578 2,746 4,475 2,625 3.20 0.000 -0.75 0.000

Furniture 986 1,607 901 1,427 766 1,278 -4.29 0.000 -5.01 0.000

Health 492 1,372 580 1,627 558 1,585 8.99 0.000 -1.29 0.310

Transportation 2,275 3,706 2,089 3,307 1,621 2,547 -4.09 0.000 -11.20 0.000

Communication 455 392 522 398 526 368 7.37 0.000 0.36 0.561

Leisure 1,107 1,519 1,193 1,530 1,076 1,430 3.87 0.000 -4.89 0.000

Education 128 479 138 446 137 468 3.78 0.088 -0.19 0.992

Hotels,

restaurants

1,554 1,952 1,486 1,801 1,282 1,644 -2.19 0.001 -6.87 0.000

Other 1,234 1,709 1,236 1,536 1,102 1,404 0.06 0.995 -5.42 0.000

Total and in twelve product groups (per adult equivalent, 2006, 2008 and 2011)

Own calculations based on the Household Budget Survey 2006, 2008 and 2011

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


15/29

T a b l e 7

C o m p o s i t i o n a n d e v o l u t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d e x p e n d i t u r e b y n a t i o n a l i t y

T y p e o f p r o d u c t

N a t i o n a l i t y

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 8

2 0 1 1

C

h a n g e 2 0 0 6 – 2 0 0 8

C h a n g e

2 0 0 8 – 2 0 1 1

M e a n

S D

M e a n

S D

M e a n

S D

%

p v a l u e

%

p v a l u e

T o t a l

S p a n i a r d s

1 6 , 5 4 5 . 8

8 , 9 3 3 . 8

1 6 , 7 0 9 . 5

8 , 4 5 9 . 1

1 5 , 2 5 8 . 0

7 , 7 1 5 . 0

0 . 4 9

0 . 1 5 6

- 2 . 9 0

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

1 4 , 0 4 1 . 1

7 , 8 7 2 . 7

1 3 , 4 5 5 . 2

7 , 0 9 6 . 4

1 1 , 3 8 0 . 4

6 , 5 8 8 . 9

- 2 . 0 9

0 . 1 4 4

- 5 . 1 4

0 . 0 0 0

F o o d

S p a n i a r d s

2 , 4 9 7 . 8

1 , 4 3 8 . 8

2 , 4 6 7 . 5

1 , 3 8 4 . 0

2 , 3 3 5 . 5

1 , 3 3 3 . 6

- 0 . 6 1

0 . 0 8 9

- 1 . 7 8

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

2 , 0 1 1 . 1

1 , 1 3 6 . 3

1 , 9 0 5 . 5

1 , 0 4 1 . 1

1 , 7 3 6 . 6

1 , 0 0 4 . 7

- 2 . 6 3

0 . 0 5 1

- 2 . 9 5

0 . 0 0 0

A l c o h o l b e v e r a g e s

S p a n i a r d s

2 8 7 . 2

4 2 6 . 8

2 8 3 . 3

4 1 8 . 0

2 2 9 . 9

3 6 5 . 0

- 0 . 6 7

0 . 6 4 2

- 6 . 2 8

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

3 1 7 . 4

4 3 8 . 0

2 7 1 . 4

4 0 2 . 1

1 9 1 . 0

3 0 4 . 5

- 7 . 2 5

0 . 0 2 3

- 9 . 8 7

0 . 0 0 0

C l o t h i n g , f o o t w e a r

S p a n i a r d s

1 , 1 2 6 . 2

1 , 5 7 6 . 8

1 , 0 8 2 . 4

1 , 5 7 6 . 2

9 1 2 . 9

1 , 3 5 6 . 1

- 1 . 9 5

0 . 0 1 8

- 5 . 2 2

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

9 2 9 . 2

1 , 1 3 2 . 0

9 0 3 . 2

1 , 1 9 9 . 6

7 9 3 . 8

1 , 2 2 7 . 7

- 1 . 4 0

0 . 8 5 8

- 4 . 0 4

0 . 0 3 4

B i l l s

S p a n i a r d s

4 , 3 4 6 . 9

2 , 5 6 1 . 4

4 , 6 4 3 . 9

2 , 7 6 0 . 8

4 , 5 6 1 . 2

2 , 6 3 5 . 9

3 . 4 2

0 . 0 0 0

- 0 . 5 9

0 . 0 0 6

O t h e r s

3 , 5 6 7 . 1

2 , 2 7 7 . 4

3 , 4 3 1 . 3

2 , 2 4 3 . 3

3 , 5 0 1 . 3

2 , 2 2 0 . 9

- 1 . 9 0

0 . 9 0 4

0 . 6 8

0 . 2 1 8

F u r n i t u r e

S p a n i a r d s

1 , 0 0 2 . 5

1 , 6 3 1 . 1

9 2 5 . 4

1 , 4 5 5 . 9

7 9 3 . 8

1 , 3 0 9 . 5

- 3 . 8 5

0 . 0 0 0

- 4 . 7 4

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

6 9 6 . 4

1 , 0 6 6 . 2

5 3 0 . 2

7 8 0 . 6

4 2 2 . 6

7 1 8 . 9

-

1 1 . 9 3

0 . 0 0 0

- 6 . 7 7

0 . 0 0 0

H e a l t h

S p a n i a r d s

5 0 1 . 6

1 , 3 9 2 . 8

5 9 4 . 2

1 , 6 4 7 . 4

5 7 6 . 7

1 , 6 1 4 . 6

9 . 2 3

0 . 0 0 0

- 0 . 9 8

0 . 5 2 7

O t h e r s

3 1 9 . 4

9 3 3 . 3

3 6 4 . 0

1 , 2 5 4 . 2

3 2 5 . 1

1 , 1 3 6 . 2

6 . 9 8

0 . 6 0 4

- 3 . 5 6

0 . 6 1 7

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

S p a n i a r d s

2 , 2 7 2 . 3

3 , 7 1 6 . 5

2 , 0 8 9 . 5

3 , 3 2 4 . 8

1 , 6 3 6 . 3

2 , 5 8 1 . 3

- 4 . 0 2

0 . 0 0 0

- 7 . 2 3

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

2 , 3 2 8 . 7

3 , 5 2 1 . 2

2 , 0 8 5 . 6

3 , 0 2 7 . 5

1 , 4 3 6 . 6

2 , 0 7 1 . 1

- 5 . 2 2

0 . 1 7 7

- 1 0 . 3 7

0 . 0 0 0

C o m m u n i c a t i o n

S p a n i a r d s

4 4 9 . 5

3 7 9 . 1

5 1 4 . 7

3 8 3 . 4

5 2 5 . 3

3 5 8 . 3

7 . 2 5

0 . 0 0 0

0 . 6 9

0 . 0 1 1

O t h e r s

5 5 1 . 2

5 6 2 . 8

6 3 6 . 7

5 6 4 . 5

5 3 3 . 2

4 6 7 . 3

7 . 7 6

0 . 0 0 1

- 5 . 4 2

0 . 0 0 0

L e i s u r e

S p a n i a r d s

1 , 1 1 8 . 0

1 , 5 3 4 . 1

1 , 2 0 8 . 4

1 , 5 4 7 . 2

1 , 0 9 9 . 8

1 , 4 3 8 . 0

4 . 0 4

0 . 0 0 0

- 2 . 9 9

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

9 1 6 . 7

1 , 2 0 8 . 8

9 5 2 . 6

1 , 2 0 4 . 9

7 8 6 . 9

1 , 2 8 7 . 7

1 . 9 6

0 . 7 6 2

- 5 . 8 0

0 . 0 0 1

E d u c a t i o n

S p a n i a r d s

1 3 0 . 9

4 8 3 . 7

1 4 0 . 4

4 4 8 . 7

1 4 1 . 3

4 7 3 . 2

3 . 6 3

0 . 1 1 4

0 . 2 1

0 . 9 8 0

O t h e r s

7 8 . 8

3 7 5 . 7

9 7 . 1

4 0 5 . 4

8 7 . 8

3 9 5 . 7

1 1 . 5 7

0 . 5 0 0

- 3 . 1 8

0 . 7 9 8

H o t e l s , r e s t a u r a n t s

S p a n i a r d s

1 , 5 6 5 . 5

1 , 9 6 7 . 6

1 , 5 0 5 . 8

1 , 8 1 7 . 8

1 , 3 1 5 . 4

1 , 6 7 0 . 2

- 1 . 9 1

0 . 0 0 6

- 4 . 2 1

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

1 , 3 5 5 . 8

1 , 6 4 5 . 8

1 , 1 8 4 . 7

1 , 4 9 9 . 3

8 7 3 . 0

1 , 2 0 5 . 5

- 6 . 3 1

0 . 0 2 4

- 8 . 7 7

0 . 0 0 0


1 3


16/29

T a b l e 7

c o n t i n u e d

T y p e o f p r o d u c t

N a t i o n a l i t y

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 8

2 0 1 1

C h a n g e 2 0 0 6 – 2 0 0 8

C h a n g e

2 0 0 8 – 2 0 1 1

M e a n

S D

M e a n

S D

M e a n

S D

%

p v a l u e

%

p v a l u e

O t h e r

S p a n i a r d s

1 , 2 4 7 . 3

1 , 7 0 6 . 1

1 , 2 5 4 . 0

1 , 5 5 4 . 0

1 , 1 2 9 . 7

1 , 4 3 6 . 2

0

. 2 7

0 . 9 1 4

- 3 . 3 1

0 . 0 0 0

O t h e r s

1 , 0 0 8 . 4

1 , 7 4 4 . 9

9 5 7 . 1

1 , 1 9 8 . 6

7 6 2 . 3

8 5 4 . 3

- 2

. 5 5

0 . 6 9 4

- 6 . 7 8

0 . 0 0 0

T o t a l a n d i n t w e l v e p

r o d u c t g r o u p s ( p e r a d u l t e q u i v a l e n t , 2 0 0 6 , 2 0 0 8 a n d 2 0 1 1 )

O w n c a l c u l a t i o n s b a s

e d o n t h e H o u s e h o l d B u d g e t S u r v

e y 2 0 0 6 , 2 0 0 8 a n d 2 0 1 1

M e a n m e a n v a l u e , S D

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , % p e r c e n t a g

e o f c h a n g e , p v a l u e s i g n i fi c a n c e

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


17/29

4 Analysis of the Determinants of Household Consumption in Spain

Studies of consumption in Spain using micro data at the household level have attempted to

test the implications of the life cycle theory with rational expectations and liquidity con-

straints (López-Salido 1993). Moreover, it has been analysed, at the regional level, the

implications of the permanent income hypothesis (Gómez and Pérez 2005). Other relevant

topics include analysing the empirical estimates, in the context of intertemporal decisions

models, of the relationship between the degree of short-term self-control of consumers andtheir consumption and saving decisions (Collado et al. 2003), as well as the household

spending response to anticipated changes in income (Browning and Collado 1999).6

Table 8 Composition of household expenditure by nationality

Type of product Nationality N Mean SD p value

Total Spaniards 20,516 16,709.5 8,459.1 0.000

Others 1,342 13,455.2 7,096.4Food Spaniards 20,516 2,467.5 1,384.0 0.000

Others 1,342 1,905.5 1,041.1

Alcoholic beverages Spaniards 20,516 283.3 418.0 0.311

Others 1,342 271.4 402.1

Clothing, footwear Spaniards 20,516 1,082.4 1,576.2 0.000

Others 1,342 903.2 1,199.6

Bills Spaniards 20,516 4,643.9 2,760.8 0.000

Others 1,342 3,567.1 2,277.4

Furniture Spaniards 20,516 925.4 1,455.9 0.000Others 1,342 530.2 780.6

Health Spaniards 20,516 594.2 1,647.4 0.000

Others 1,342 364.0 1,254.2

Transportation Spaniards 20,516 2,089.5 3,324.8 0.964

Others 1,342 2,085.6 3,027.5

Communication Spaniards 20,516 514.7 383.4 0.000

Others 1,342 636.7 564.5

Leisure Spaniards 20,516 1,208.4 1,547.2 0.000

Others 1,342 952.6 1,204.9Education Spaniards 20,516 140.4 448.7 0.000

Others 1,342 97.1 405.4

Hotels, restaurants Spaniards 20,516 1,505.8 1,817.8 0.000

Others 1,342 1,184.7 1,499.3

Other Spaniards 20,516 1,254.0 1,554.0 0.000

Others 1,342 957.1 1,198.6

Total and in twelve product groups (per adult equivalent, 2008)

Own calculations based on the Household Budget Survey 2008

N number of observations, Mean mean value, SD standard deviation, p value significance

6 A review of the different empirical approaches to estimate how consumption responds to changes in

income can be found in Jappelli and Pisaferri (2010). A comprehensive discussion of theoretical and

empirical issues regarding consumption using household survey data can be found in Deaton (1997).


1 3


18/29

Barceló and Villanueva (2010) study to what extent individuals exposed to risk of losing

their job delay consumption and accumulate more assets to build buffer stock of sav-

ings. Casado (2011) investigates the degree of consumption insurance with respect to

transitory and permanent income shocks. The capacity of insurance mechanisms for

smoothing consumption changes is assessed and the role of family transfers is emphasised

Fig. 1 Average annual change in consumption per adult equivalent of households in Spain (2008–2011,

total and in six product groups, Spanish and foreign population). Note Author’s calculation based on 2008

and 2011 Household Budget Survey data

0

. 0 0 0 0 2

. 0 0 0 0 4

. 0 0 0 0 6

. 0 0 0 0 8

f ( y )

0 12000 24000 36000 48000 60000

Per capita consumption in Euros (y)

Spaniards Other nationalities

Fig. 2 Kernel density curve of per adult equivalent consumption in Euros according to nationality of the

main breadwinner in 2008. Note Author’s calculation based on 2008 Household Budget Survey data

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


19/29

as smoothing strategy. Another important finding is the profile of those households facing

difficulties for full insurance from permanent or transitory shocks. As expected, younger

and low wealth households exhibit partial insurance to income shocks.

This section follows the empirical approach of Castillo et al. (1998) when estimating aconsumption function to evaluate the consumption loss experienced by the unemployed

workers relative to employees in Portugal and Spain. Furthermore, the analysis follows the

lines of Adiego and Ayala (2013). That is, regressions for the years considered are esti-

mated in order to determine the role of different explanatory variables on households

expenditure per adult equivalent. In our case, the emphasis is on identifying the relevance

of the specific characteristics of each household, the main breadwinners and their partners

(where appropriate) to determine household expenditure per equivalent adult. In order to

do so, consumption regressions corresponding to the years 2006, 2008 and 2011 are

estimated.

Overall, we estimate the following reduced form of a consumption function at the

household level:

C i ¼ bo þ b1 xi þ ei; ei NIDð0;r2Þ ð1Þ

where C i is the logarithm of consumption per adult equivalent of the household, xi is a

vector of household and the main breadwinner characteristics, among other variables. b1 is

a set of parameters that capture the effect of xi on Y i. In addition, b0 is the inter-

cept and ei is the error term for household i, which we assume to have independent normal

distribution with zero mean and variance r2.

More specifically, the explanatory variables contained in Table 10 are taken intoaccount. Note that household income is not included as an independent variable. Initially,

a model was specified with income as independent variable and, given the endogeneity

between spending and household income, education level of the main breadwinner was

used as an instrumental variable for household income per adult equivalent (in

logs). However, this approach introduced multicollinearity in the model, so that estimates

led to results inconsistent with economic logic. Finally, we chose two model specifications.

The first one includes all the variables, with the exception of those referring to the partner

of the main breadwinner. The second specification includes all the variables.

Estimation is done by OLS using a heteroskedasticity robust estimator of the variance–

covariance matrix. The results of the estimates for the years 2006, 2008 and 2011 are

presented in Table 11. The fit is good (Adjusted R-squared above 0.29 for all years and

specifications) and the vast majority of variables are statistically significant at the indi-

vidual level, so that the hypothesis that the coefficients of each specification are jointly

zero can be ruled out (the p value of the F test is less than 0.001 for all

Table 9 Gini coefficients of inequality in household consumption by nationality (per adult equivalent,

2006, 2008 and 2011)

Population 2006 2008 2011

Spain 0.282 0.268 0.275According to Nationality

Spaniards 0.279 0.264 0.266

Others 0.284 0.259 0.290

Own calculations based on the Household Budget Survey 2006, 2008 and 2011


1 3


20/29

T a b l e 1 0

Q u i n t i l e s f o r t h e a v e r a g e h o u s e h o l d c o n s u m

p t i o n b y n a t i o n a l i t y ( p e r a d u l t e q

u i v a l e n t 2 0 0 6 , 2 0 0 8 a n d 2 0 1 1 )

Q u i n t i l e s

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 8

2 0 1 1

S p a i n

S p a n i a r d s

O t h e r

S p a i n

S p a n i a r d s

O t h e r

S p a i n

S p a n i a r d s

O t h e r

1

7 , 1 0 9

7 , 2 2 9

6 , 3 5 4

7 , 4 9 7

7 , 6 7 1

6 , 5 9 0

6 , 6 6 9

7 , 0 4 5

5 , 3 0 8

2

1 1 , 0 1 5

1 1 , 2 2 7

9 , 3 6 0

1 1 , 3 3 5

1 1 , 6 4 0

9 , 6 6 5

1 0 , 1 1 4

1 0 , 5 7 0

7 , 6 1 9

3

1 4 , 6 4 0

1 4 , 9 4 6

1 2 , 2 9 7

1 4 , 7 3 2

1 5 , 1 1 1

1 2 , 2 6 8

1 3 , 2 8 1

1 3 , 7 5 7

1 0 , 0 6 7

4

1 9 , 5 2 3

1 9 , 9 0 1

1 5 , 7 3 0

1 9 , 2 2 1

1 9 , 6 4 8

1 5 , 7 8 1

1 7 , 3 4 5

1 7 , 7 9 7

1 3 , 5 3 6

5

3 1 , 2 6 5

3 1 , 6 1 7

2 6 , 8 3 6

3 0 , 0 8 9

3 0 , 5 5 5

2 5 , 6 0 5

2 7 , 1 7 0

2 7 , 5 9 1

2 3 , 3 0 6

A l l s a m p l e

1 6 , 7 1 0

1 6 , 9 8 4

1 4 , 0 9 9

1 6 , 5 7 5

1 6 , 9 2 5

1 3 , 9 7 3

1 4 , 9 1 5

2 7 , 5 9 1

1 1 , 9 4 8

Q 4 / Q 2

1 . 7 7

1 . 7 7

1 . 6 8

1 . 7 0

1 . 6 9

1 . 6 3

1 . 7 1

1 . 6 8

1 . 7 8

Q 5 / Q 1

4 . 4 0

4 . 3 7

4 . 2 2

4 . 0 1

3 . 9 8

3 . 8 9

4 . 0 7

3 . 9 2

4 . 3 9

O w n c a l c u l a t i o n s b a s e d o n t h e H o u s e h o l d B u d g e t S u r v e y 2 0 0 6 , 2 0 0 8 a n d 2 0 1 1

Q 1 fi r s t q u i n t i l e ,

Q 2

s e c o n d q u i n t i l e ,

Q 4 f o u r t h q u i n t i l e ,

Q 5 fi f t h q u i n t i l e

R. Ballester et al.

1 3


21/29

T a b l e 1 1

R e g r e s s i o n

r e s u l t s o f t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t o t a l c o n s u m p t i o n p e r a d u l t e q u i v a l e n t

Y

e a r 2 0 0 6

M

1

Y e a r 2 0 0 8

M 1

Y e a r 2

0 1 1

M 1

Y e a r 2 0 0 6

M 2

Y e a r 2 0 0 8

M 2

Y e a r 2 0 1 1

M 2

D e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e : e x p e n d i t u r e p e r

a d u l t e q u i v a l e n t ( i n l o g a r i t h m s )

E d u c a t i o n l e v e l o f M

B

( r e f e r e n c e :

n o e d u c a t i o n o r p r i m a r y

e d u c a t i o n )

F i r s t c y c l e o f s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n

0

. 1 5 3 7 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 0 8 )

0 . 1 2 9 8 * * *

( 0 . 0 0 9 6 )

0 . 1 5 6 1

* * *

( 0 . 0 1 0

0 )

0 . 0 9 5 1 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 1 )

0 . 0 7 8 1 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 2 )

0 . 1 1 0 2 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 3 1 )

S e c o n d c y c l e o f s e c o n

d a r y e d u c a t i o n

0

. 2 7 4 8 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 2 9 )

0 . 2 3 7 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 1 5 )

0 . 3 0 3 3

* * *

( 0 . 0 1 1

8 )

0 . 1 8 1 2 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 6 4 )

0 . 1 5 6 1 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 7 )

0 . 2 0 6 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 5 9 )

H i g h e r e d u c a t i o n

0

. 4 1 0 2 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 1 8 )

0 . 3 9 9 2 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 0 8 )

0 . 4 6 7 4

* * *

( 0 . 0 1 1

5 )

0 . 2 7 2 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 5 8 )

0 . 2 6 3 9 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 5 )

0 . 3 2 6 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 6 1 )

R e g i o n c l a s s i fi c a t i o n

N U T S 1

( r e f e r e n c e : M a d r i d

)

N o r t h w e s t ( G a l i c i a , A s t u r i a s a n d C a n t a b r i a )

- 0 . 1 7 2 0 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 7 1 )

- 0 . 1 4 2 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 6 )

- 0 . 1 7 4 3 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4

0 )

- 0 . 1 4 3 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 9 2 )

- 0 . 1 2 6 4 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 6 1 )

- 0 . 1 6 1 4 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 6 0 )

N o r t h e a s t ( P a ı ´ s V a s c o , N a v a r r a , L a R i o j a a n d A r a g o ´ n )

- 0 . 0 5 6 6 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 5 0 )

- 0 . 0 5 9 4 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 2 8 )

- 0 . 0 8 5 9 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 2

3 )

- 0 . 0 5 0 0 * *

( 0 . 0 1 6 9 )

- 0 . 0 5 1 5 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 0 )

- 0 . 1 0 3 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 1 )

C e n t r a l ( C a s t i l l a y L e o ´ n , C a s t i l l a – L a M a n c h a a n d

E x t r e m a d u r a )

- 0 . 2 2 7 3 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 6 5 )

- 0 . 2 3 1 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 4 )

- 0 . 2 5 4 8 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 3

9 )

- 0 . 2 0 9 3 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 8 3 )

- 0 . 2 0 5 9 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 5 5 )

- 0 . 2 4 2 3 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 5 6 )

E a s t ( C a t a l u n y a , C o m u n i t a t V a l e n c i a n a a n d I l l e s

B a l e a r s )

- 0 . 0 4 6 9 * *

(

0 . 0 1 5 0 )

- 0 . 0 6 3 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 3 0 )

- 0 . 1 3 9 1 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 2

6 )

- 0 . 0 4 0 5 *

( 0 . 0 1 6 9 )

- 0 . 0 5 9 2 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 2 )

- 0 . 1 4 2 2 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 3 )

S o u t h ( A n d a l u c ı ´ a , M u r c i a , C e u t a a n d M e l i l l a )

- 0 . 1 5 3 1 * * *

(

0 . 0 1 6 3 )

- 0 . 1 8 0 3 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 3 8 )

- 0 . 2 2 6 6 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 3

3 )

- 0 . 1 0 9 1 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 8 0 )

- 0 . 1 4 6 4 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 5 0 )

- 0 . 2 0 6 8 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 4 9

C a n a r i a s

- 0 . 1 8 1 3 * * *

(

0 . 0 2 1 7 )

- 0 . 2 2 7 8 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 8 9 )

- 0 . 3 1 1 9 * * *

( 0 . 0 1 8

8 )

- 0 . 1 6 2 8 * * *

( 0 . 0 2 5 2 )

- 0 . 1 9 9 9 * * *

( 0 . 0 2 1 5 )

- 0 . 2 9 5 1 * * *

( 0 . 0 2 1 0 )

M u n i c i p a l i t y s i z e ( r e f e r e n c e :

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e h

a b i t a n t s )

F r o m 1 0 , 0 0 0 t o 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 h a b i t a n t s

- 0 . 0 0 2 9

(

0 . 0 0 8 6 )

- 0 . 0 1 4 9 *

( 0 . 0 0 7 3 )

0 . 0 0 0 4

( 0 . 0 0 7

1 )

0 . 0 0 2 4

( 0 . 0 0 9 5 )

- 0 . 0 0 0 6

( 0 . 0 0 8 1 )

0 . 0 0 8 7

( 0 . 0 0 7 9 )

L e s s t h a n 1 0 . 0 0 0 h a b i t a n t s

- 0 . 0 2 6 9 *

(

0 . 0 1 0 8 )

- 0 . 0 3 9 2 * * *

( 0 . 0 0 9 3 )

- 0 . 0 2 2 6 *

( 0 . 0 0 8

9 )

- 0 . 0 1 6 6

( 0 . 0 1 2 0 )

- 0 . 0 1 7 9

( 0 . 0 1 0 3 )

- 0 . 0 1 4 1

( 0 . 0 0 9 9 )

H o u s i n g o w n e r s h i p ( r e f e r e n c e :

O w n e d w i t h o u t m o r t g a g e )

O w n e d w i t h m o r t

Soci - 2014 - Ballester - Velazco - Rigall - Great Recession Consumption

Documents

Transcript of Soci - 2014 - Ballester - Velazco - Rigall - Great Recession Consumption