Premium
Changes in Low‐Income Households’ Spending and Time Use Patterns in Response to the 2013 Sunset of the ARRA‐SNAP Benefit
Author(s) -
Kim Jiyoon June,
Rabbitt Matthew P,
Tuttle Charlotte
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
applied economic perspectives and policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.4
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 2040-5804
pISSN - 2040-5790
DOI - 10.1093/aepp/ppz007
Subject(s) - supplemental nutrition assistance program , consumer expenditure survey , work (physics) , economics , demographic economics , low income , shock (circulatory) , survey data collection , snap , panel data , household income , work hours , poverty , labour economics , food insecurity , public economics , food security , aggregate expenditure , economic growth , working hours , agriculture , medicine , econometrics , mechanical engineering , statistics , computer graphics (images) , mathematics , history , ecology , archaeology , computer science , engineering , biology
We examine the effects of the 2013 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit cut on households’ food expenditures, as well as other expenditure categories by analyzing data from the 2012–2014 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX). Making use of the short panel structure of the CEX, we employ difference‐in‐differences methods with household fixed effects. Results show that reduced SNAP benefits significantly decreased the food‐at‐home expenditure of SNAP households, but increased expenditure on used cars and public transportation. To further explore these findings, we use the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), where we find that SNAP households spent less time on food preparation, but more time on market work (both formal work and informal work) after the 2013 SNAP benefit cut. Our findings suggest that cutting program benefits by any level is immediately reflected in low‐income household's food expenditure. Our results also indicate that an increase in transportation expenditures correspond with the observed increase in labor supply for participant households. These reveal important information about the behaviors and coping strategies of low‐income households as they respond to a negative shock to their income.