No.

1/2011 TEN STYLISED FACTS ABOUT HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON TRANSPORT1 Jari Kauppila, Administrator Joint Transport Research Centre of the OECD and the International Transport Forum INTRODUCTION TO DATA Although it is generally accepted that transport is a major consumption item for households and it has been more or less stable over time, little is said on the more detailed composition of transport expenditure across regions and household types by socio-economic categories. This note looks at the household consumption (spending) of transport related goods and services mainly across the International Transport Forum member countries by different socio-economic factors. The findings show that while the share of spending on transport has remained relative stable over time, there are great variations on spending by different socio-economic groups which needs to be taken into account in designing policies. Data on household consumption in this paper are based on two sources: household budget surveys (HBS) and national accounts data (NA). The HBS is a survey which is run on a sample of households in a country. In all the countries, sharing common accommodation and expenditures is a prerequisite for a group of people to be considered a household. HBSs are usually carried out every five years. Eurostat has collected, aggregated, and published this data for the EU countries on a five-year cycle (latest data being from 2005). National Accounts data are compiled through a variety of statistical sources; such as HBS, business surveys, foreign trade statistics and value-added tax statistics. NA presents only the final total consumption expenditure of households, consisting of expenditure on goods and services incurred by resident and non-resident households on the economic territory. Evolution of the final consumption expenditure of households allows an assessment of purchases made by households, reflecting changes in wages and other incomes, but also in employment and in savings behaviour. HBS and NA data differ to some extent for a number of reasons. The HBS deals strictly with households and all the information is gathered directly from them. There may be some doubts on the accuracy in reporting on what is considered as consumption. Nevertheless, countries have taken steps to harmonise their methodology, often resulting in high-quality results. More importantly, HBS includes breakdowns normally not included in the NA, including information on income, place of residence, and other characteristics of the reference person. Data in this paper come from the OECD and Eurostat databases together with additional HBS data from Japan, United States, Mexico and China. The OECD national accounts data include total household consumption of vehicle purchase, operation of vehicles and purchase of transport services since 1970. Eurostat HBS data, on the other hand, are more detailed, including detailed consumption data by socio-economic factors for 2005. Because these data may be exposed to possible errors due to missing observations and low response rates, some caution should be exercised when interpreting individual country data.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent positions of the OECD or the International Transport Forum.

Fact 1. Housing, transport and food are the main household budgetary drivers Housing, transportation and food are the main household budgetary drivers in practically all of the countries where data has been available. Housing still accounts for the main part of consumption expenditure in most of the countries, while in few countries food accounts for the largest share of household spending. However, in more than ten of the 34 countries in Figure 1, transport is the second largest consumption item, larger than money spent on food. Figure 1. Household consumption in selected countries in 2005 (% of total spending)
100%
90%

Miscellaneous goods and services Restaurants and hotels Education Recreation and culture Communications

80% 70%
60%

Health 50% 40%

30%

Furnishings, household equipment and routine maintenance of the house Clothing and footwear Food and non-alcoholic beverages Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels Transport
12

20% 10%
0%

Sources: For the EU, Eurostat Consumption Expenditure of Private Households; For Mexico, INEGI Household Consumption Survey; For the USA, BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey; For Japan, Statistics Bureau Family Income and Expenditure Survey. Note: data for EU-27 is an estimate. Figure is illustrative and some variations are due to differences in classifications and methods used.1 2 The main lesson here is that transportation expenditures ought not to be studied in isolation as there are relationships in consumer expenditures across commodity categories. Ferdous et al (2010) suggest that households seem to adjust even food consumption patterns to compensate for the increase in travel expenditure. Households first cut savings then eat-out less and purchase less expensive food. Only then is vehicle purchase affected (postponing purchase or buying a cheaper car). Often buying cheaper fuel or travelling less are considered as the last option.

Footnote by Turkey. The information in this document with reference to Cyprus relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the Cyprus issue. Footnote by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Commission. The Republic of Cyprus is recognized by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus

Bulgaria Romania FYROM Lithuania Poland Slovakia Croatia Japan Estonia Greece Spain Turkey Latvia Netherlands Czech Republic Ireland EU-27 Italy Belgium Portugal Sweden Germany France United Kingdom Denmark Mexico Hungary Cyprus Slovenia Finland Austria Luxembourg Malta United States Norway

Fact 2. Share of transport on total household spending has remained relatively constant over time Household consumption on transport has remained relatively stable in terms of its expenditure share in the OECD countries since the 1970s. Households spent on average around 13.5% of their expenditure on transport related goods and services in the OECD countries in 2005. There are variations between countries but, as Figure 2 illustrates, the share has remained fairly constant over time, between 10-15 percent. Figure 2. Transport share of total household spending in the OECD countries 1970-2008 (%)
25

20

15

10

0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Source: OECD Annual National Accounts, Volume 2, 1970-2007 (2008 prov). Detailed aggregates (in millions of national currency).

Although the share has remained relatively constant, the volume of spending on transport has more than doubled in the last 40 years in selected countries where data is available since 1970. A similar trend is observed for housing where in some cases spending has grown even stronger in real terms. The growth in household spending on food has been somewhat slower (Table 1).
Table 1. Growth factor of household spending on main items 1970-2008 (in constant values) Australia Food Transport Housing 2.3 2.7 4.1 Denmark 1.3 1.6 2.0 France 1.9 2.4 3.0 Italy 1.4 2.7 2.3 United States 1.6 2.9 2.7

Source: OECD Annual National Accounts, Volume 2, 1970-2007 (2008 prov). 3

Fact 3. The share of transport in household expenditure increases with welfare Data in Figure 3 suggests there is a strong relationship between household spending on transport and GDP per capita. This means that as the individual welfare (measured as GDP/capita) increases, the share of money households spend on transport grows as well. GDP per capita in PPP dollars takes into account the difference in the purchasing power in each country hence improving the comparability. There are only few outliers from this trend, marked in green and light blue. Figure 3. Transport spending and GDP per capita 2005 in some OECD and ITF countries (%)
18
Malta 16 Slovenia Iceland

USA

Norway

Trend Luxembourg

Finland

Austria

Cyprus 14 Mexico Hungary Portugal 12 %

10 New Zealand Denmark Canada

UK Germany
Italy Belgium Australia

Sweden
Ireland Average

Turkey

Latvia Czech Rep Estonia

Korea Spain Greece

Japan Switzerland Netherlands

Croatia 8
FYROM 6 Slovak Rep Poland Lithuania

Romania

Bulgaria 4 0 10000 20000 Average 30000 GDP / capita (PPP $US) 40000 50000 60000

Sources: For the EU, Eurostat Consumption Expenditure of Private Households; For Mexico, INEGI Household Consumption Survey; For the USA, BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey; For Japan, Statistics Bureau Family Income and Expenditure Survey. For GDP and population, source OECD. At household level, income is one of the determinant factors of household transport spending as already suggested above. On average, the highest income quintile households spend around 1.8 times more on transport (as a share of total spending) than the lowest income quintile in the EU. Data in Figure 4 further suggests that there is a strong correlation between the level of spending and the spread of spending between income groups. Countries where the difference between the highest and lowest quintile is large generally have a lower overall ratio of household spending on transport and vice versa. This suggests that as welfare increases (both household level and country level) not only does the spending level increase, but the differences between income quintiles get smaller. Figure 5 looks at the actual level of monetary spending by adult equivalent per household (how much is spent by one adult person) in the EU. An adult in the highest income household spends more than four times more on transport compared with an adult in the poorest 20% of households.

Figure 4. Transport spending by income level in 2005 (% of total spending)

25

20
x1.8

Fifth quintile Fourth quintile

x1.2

15

% 10
x4

Third quintile
Second quintile

First quintile 5

Figure 5. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) (red=EU27)
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Bulgaria Romania Turkey Poland Luxembourg Hungary Estonia FRYROM Slovenia Portugal Lithuania Slovakia Malta United Kingdom Croatia EU-27 Germany Denmark Czech Republic Belgium Ireland Latvia Norway Netherlands Sweden Cyprus Finland Greece Japan France United States Austria Spain
0 First quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Fifth quintile

Fact 4. The main driver of household spending is the ownership (and use) of cars On average, households in the OECD countries spent 48% of transport expenditure on operating personal transport equipment, 35% on purchase of vehicles, and 18% on transport services in 2007 (Figure 6). The main driver of household transport spending is the ownership (and use) of cars, accounting for around 80% of all household spending on transport. There are variations in the composition of the expenditure that could be explained by the level of taxation, income, degree of urbanisation and density of public transport network. As Figure 7 illustrates, there have been only small variations over time in the composition of spending in most of the countries, except in Korea, where spending on vehicles and operation of them has increased dramatically during the last 40 years. This reflects the rapid motorisation of the Korean society. Figure 6. Household expenditure on transport by cost item in 2007
100%
90% 80%

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

POLAND ITALY NORWAY SPAIN HUNGARY FINLAND LUXEMBOURG BELGIUM CANADA

Transport services Operation of vehicles Purchase of vehicles

KOREA

FRANCE

MEXICO

AUSTRALIA

NETHERLANDS

Source: OECD Figure 7. Evolution of the transport spending structure 1970-2008 (%)
100% USA KOREA ITALY FRANCE DENMARK
AUSTRALIA Transport services Operation of personal vehicles Purchase of vehicles 1970 2008 1970 2008 1970 2008 1970 2008

50%

0%

UNITED KINGDOM

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

CZECH REPUBLIC

UNITED STATES

1970

2008 1970

2008

Source: OECD Two cost items clearly stand out: purchase of cars and fuel. This is a consistent pattern in almost all countries. Together, these two items account for around 50-75% of household spending in EU countries (Figure 8). To compare, 73% of transport spending in Japan is related to private cars 6

DENMARK

ICELAND

SWEDEN

IRELAND

GERMANY

AUSTRIA

GREECE

(Statistics Bureau), while in Mexico the figure is 61 % (INEGI). In the United States the purchase of cars and gasoline together account for more than 65% of transport expenditure (Figure 9). Figure 8. Detailed breakdown of transport spending in the EU countries
100% Other purchased transport services Combined passenger transport
80% Passenger transport by sea and inland waterway 70%

90%

Passenger transport by air Passenger transport by railway Passenger transport by road

60%

50%
Other services in respect of personal transport equipment 40%

Spares parts and accessories for personal transport equipment Maintenance and repair of personal transport equipment Fuels and lubricants for personal transport equipment

30%

20%
Bicycles

10%

Motor cycles Motor cars

0%

Greece

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Source: Eurostat Figure 9. Household spending in the USA 2005

100%

6 90%
Transport services

Vehicle finance charges

11 15
Other vehicle charges

80%
Maintenance and repairs

22

70%

52

Vehicle insurance

Gasoline and motor oil

Operation of vehicles

60%

46

50% 3

40%
Other vehicles Purchase of vehicles

43
30%
Cars used

20%

42
Cars new

55
10%

0%

Source: US HBS 7

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Croatia

Romania

Austria

Ireland

Cyprus

Slovenia

Belgium

Turkey

France

Latvia

Estonia

EU-27

Lithuania

Portugal

Bulgaria

Denmark

Slovakia

Sweden

Poland

Hungary

Finland

Malta

Italy

Spain

Norway

Fact 5. Increased spending on transport by richer households is mainly directed to cars What, then, determines the growth in spending on transport for the higher income households? As the following figure suggests, car ownership is the determinant factor of higher spending. As households get richer they tend to buy a car, a larger car, or a second (or third) car. The share households spend on public transport seems to decrease with rising incomes in the EU, while data for the USA and Japan show some increase for the public transport share in the highest quintile. Figure 10. Transport spending structure by income group in 2005 (%)
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Quintile 5 Transport services Operation of vehicles

Purchase of vehicles

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

EU-27

United States

Japan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

19

14

12

11

10

7
34

27

22

26

27

Transport services

56

56

55

54

45

63

56

55

52

47 56 56
59

48

Operation of vehicles

54
25

30

33

35

45

32

40

40

44

45
11 16

23

15

25

Purchase of vehicles

quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5 q1

quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5

quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5

The above analysis is confirmed below in Table 2. It shows the mean spending by adult equivalent by income group in the EU. An adult in the richest 20% of households spends 2.5 times more on transport services than an adult in the poorest 20% of households. However, an adult in the last quintile spends 3.6 times more on operation of cars, and 8.0 times more on purchasing new vehicles than an adult in the first quintile. Table 2. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) Quintile 1 Purchase of vehicles Operation of vehicles Transport services 223 491 167 Quintile 2 324 602 151 Quintile 3 621 1018 224 Quintile 4 938 1464 297 Quintile 5 1782 1782 418

Source: Eurostat. PPS refer to Purchasing Power Standards which are derived from those expressed in national currency by applying purchasing power parities (PPP).

Fact 6. Transport spending structure and level changes dramatically only for households with the oldest consumers In comparison with income, age seems to have slightly less impact on transport spending levels. There are no great variations between different age groups except for the oldest age group. Indeed, it is only in the households with the oldest consumers that significant changes in the level and structure of spending occur. Almost without exception, the lowest spending level is for the group of those over 60 years old in the EU. On average they spend 1.5 times less on transport (as a share of total spending) than the highest spending age category (often those less than 30 years old). Figure 11 also gives some evidence that the difference between spending by age group is getting larger for countries where spending on transport in general is lower (slightly downward trend). Figure 11. Transport spending by age group in 2005 (% of total spending)
25

20 Less than 30 years 15

% 10
x4
x1.1 x1.5

Between 30 and 44 years

Between 45 and 59 years 60 years and over

0
Germany

Denmark

Hungary

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Portugal

Belgium

Bulgaria

FYROM

Greece

Malta

Spain

Ireland

EU-27

Finland

Croatia

Latvia

Slovakia

Norway

Cyprus

France

Poland

United Kingdom

The composition of spending changes mainly for those over 60 years. Figure 12 shows that spending on purchase of vehicles decreases starting from the age group of those above around 40-45 years old. Both in the EU and Japan, there is a rather significant increase in the purchase of transport services for the oldest group. Furthermore, in both Japan and EU, the households with the youngest consumers tend to spend more on public transport services than the middle-aged groups. Finally, Figure 13 shows the same data for the EU countries in terms of adult equivalent spending. It confirms the above analysis by illustrating the difference between the oldest age group and other groups. While there are no great differences between the first three age groups, the group of those over 60 years old shows the drop in spending.

Lithuania

Romania

Estonia

Sweden

Austria

Slovenia

Turkey

Figure 12. Transport spending structure by age group in 2005 (%)

Less than 30 yrs 30-44 yrs 45-59 yrs

+60 yrs Transport services Operation of vehicles Purchase of vehicles

100% 80% 60% 40%

20%
0%

EU-27

United States

Japan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

17

13

13 30

7 39

Transport services
Operation of vehicles

20

24

26

25

37

42

43

43
28

51

51

51

54

52

54 80

Public transport
76 74

61 42 45 43
41 Purchase of vehicles 46

75

63

45

44

41

42

39

Private transport

q1 < 30

30-44

45-59

+60

< 30

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

+70

< 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 +70

Figure 13. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) (red=EU27)
4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Less than 30 years Between 30 and 44 years Between 45 and 59 years 60 years and over

10

Fact 7. Unemployed and retired spend least on transport but still rely on cars Unemployment and retirement from work affect the transport spending of households. As Figure 14 suggests, the unemployed or retired (normally being the lowest spending group on the graph) spend around 1.5 times less on transport as a percentage of all spending compared to those in employment. Again, the spread (or ratio) of variation becomes generally bigger in countries where, overall, less is spent on transport (trend line). Figure 14. Transport spending by socio economic group in 2005 (% of total spending)
25

20
x1.5

15
%

x1.4

x3.9

Self-employed Non manual workers in industry and services Manual workers in industry and services Inactive population - Other Unemployment

10

5 Retired 0

The composition of transport spending shows some varying results for different regions or countries (Figure 15). The share of car purchase decreases in the EU for the unemployed, but not for retired people. The quality of data on this topic is not very good and differences in classifications and other uncertainties affect the reliability of findings. Figure 15. Transport spending structure by socio-economic group in 2005 (%)
Manual workers Non-manual workers Self-employed

Ireland Luxembourg Cyprus Denmark EU-27 Germany Austria Italy Czech Republic Belgium Finland Netherlands Spain Croatia France Sweden United Kingdom Greece Hungary Estonia Slovenia Turkey Poland Bulgaria Latvia Lithuania Slovakia
Unemployed

Retired Transport services Operation of vehicles Purchase of vehicles

100% 80% 60% 40%

20%
0%

EU-27

United States

Japan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% q1

10

12 50

14
57

11

19

5 Transport services
Operation of vehicles Purchase of vehicles 36 59

6 51

18 17

29 31 34 30

50

52

52

54

48 82 83 71 69 66 70

49

Public transport

41

38

39

29

37

31

41

43

46

Private transport

11

Fact 8. Bigger families spend more on transport (and use of car) Family size and structure obviously explain household expenditure of transport-related goods and services. The larger the family gets, the more is spent on transport in general. Single-person households spend on average 1.8 times less (measured as a share of total spending) on transport than families with two (or more) adults and children. This finding is certainly not surprising. There is also a strong correlation between the level of spending and the ratio between those spending the least and those spending the most. The difference between the lowest and highest spending groups is larger in countries where the share of transport in total spending is smaller (Figure 16). Figure 16. Transport spending by type of household in 2005 (% of total spending)
25

20
x1.3 x1.8

Single person

15 % 10
x4.2

Single parent with dependent children Two adults

Two adults with dependent children Three or more adults

Three or more adults with dependent children 5

Also, not surprisingly perhaps, the bigger the household gets the more is spent on private vehicles and their use. This is intuitively rather clear, as households with children have more complex schedules and needs: to take children to school and hobbies, for example. The single-person households tend to spend more on public transport compared to those with bigger families, especially in the EU and Japan. Perhaps surprisingly, families with one parent and dependent children spend most on transport services in the EU in terms of share of total transport spending. This could be partly due to lower incomes and hence limited ability to buy and use private cars (Figure 17). Looking at the same data not by household, but by spending levels per adult equivalent in the household, results are similar to above but the differences between household types become slightly smaller. The size of the household still matters. An adult in a family with at least two adults and dependents spends around 1.7 times more on transport than an adult in a single person household (Figure 18). However, there are no great differences between households that have only two adults or those having adults and dependent children.

Luxembourg Norway Cyprus Germany France Ireland Lithuania Austria Slovenia Italy Sweden Belgium EU-27 United Kingdom Finland Poland Greece Malta Latvia Romania Portugal Spain Czech Republic Denmark Hungary FYROM Estonia Bulgaria Croatia Slovakia

12

Figure 17. Household spending structure by type of household in 2005 (%)

Single person Single parent Two adults

Two adults with children

Three adults

Three adults and children Transport services Operation of vehicles Purchase of vehicles

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

EU-27

United States

Japan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

18

21

10

12

11

13

58
59 62 60

52

48

52

Transport services Operation of vehicles

38

27

21

23

20

17

Public transport

61

62

57
73 79 77 80

83

23

19

28

27

27

30

37

44

46

62
44 Purchase of vehicles

Private transport

q1 Single 1+dep 2 ad 2+dep 3 ad 3+dep

Single

1+ dep

2 adults

2+dep

1 per 2 per 3 per 4 per 5 per 6 per

Figure 18. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) (red=EU27)
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 Single person Single parent with dependent children Two adults Two adults with dependent children Three or more adults Three or more adults with dependent children

13

Fact 9. Degree of urbanisation has only a small impact on transport spending shares in rich countries The degree of urbanisation seems to have only a small impact on the spread of household expenditure, especially compared with other socio-economic factors. Overall, households in sparsely populated areas spend slightly more on transport than those living in densely-populated regions (measured as a percentage of total spending). However, the differences are small and the variations between countries are also limited (Figure 19). Not surprisingly perhaps, in terms of spending structure, those households in densely populated areas spend more on public transport than those in other regions, likely reflecting the availability of public transport services (Figure 20). Figure 19. Transport spending by degree of urbanisation in 2005 (% of total spending)
25

20
x1.04 x1.7

15 % 10

x1.1

Sparsely populated area Intermediate urbanized area Densely-populated area

0
Slovenia Poland Norway Greece EU-27 Germany Cyprus Belgium Denmark Czech Republic France Finland Hungary Portugal Slovakia United Kingdom Spain Unites States Austria Italy Sweden Latvia Luxembourg Bulgaria Croatia Estonia

Figure 20. Household spending structure by degree of urbanization in 2005

Densely-populated Intermediate urbanized Sparsely populated Transport services Operation of vehicles Purchase of vehicles

100%

80%
60% 40%

20%
0%

EU-27

United States

Japan

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

14

10

10

40 45 47
49

25

22

20

15

Transport services

64

64

72 54
44 58 60

62

Operation of vehicles

41

43

41

27

30

25

16

22

20

20 Small B

22 Village

Purchase of vehicles

q1 Densely pop

Interm

Sparsely pop

Central city

Other urban

Rural

Maj city Middle ci Small A

14

Fact 10. Transport spending is rapidly increasing in China In China, recent years have seen a rapid increase in the share of transport spending in total household expenditure. Data is not available for rural areas for transport alone, but the combined transport and communications category shows increase over time. Transport spending of households (as of total spending) in urban areas has increased from 5.4% in 2004 to 7.2% in 2008 (Figure 21). Figure 22 also shows that the increase in urban transport spending has been a pattern repeated almost across China. Figure 21. Household spending on transport in China (% of total)
14

12
10 8 Transport

6
4 2

Transport and Communications

0
Rural 1999 Rural 2004 Rural 2008 Urban 2004Urban 2008

Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Figure 22. Transport spending (% of total) in urban China 2004 and 2008
14

12

10

Urban 2004 Urban 2008

15

The share of transport in household spending increases with welfare, as argued already in the stylized fact No. 3. The highest income households spend 2.4 times more on transport and communications (as a share of total spending) than the lowest income households (Figure 23). Furthermore, in higher income families, the spending on transport and communications increases proportionally more than for any other consumption item (Figure 24). Figure 23. Household transport and communications spending by income group in urban China in 2008
20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00

12.00
10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00

0.00
Lowest income Low income Low middle (first decile) (second decile) (second quintile) Middle (third Upper middle High income Higest income quintile) (fourth (ninth decile) (tenth decile) quintile)

Figure 24. Strucuture of household spending by income in China in 2008 (% of total spending)
100% 90% 80% 8.8 70%
60% 2.5 4.2 3.7

4.9 7.1 9.9 9.8

Residence

6.2 10.2 10.4 7.0 12.1

Miscellaneous Goods and Services

12.3

Household Facilities, Articles and Services

7.1 9.4 7.6

5.9
14.7

Clothing

50% 40% 30%

12.6 18.5

Health Care and Medical Services

Education, Cultural and Recreation Services

48.1

20% 10% 0% Lowest income

Transport and Communications 37.9 29.2 Food

Average

Highest income

16

SOURCES National data China: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Available at: http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/ EU27: Eurostat, Consumption expenditure of private households. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database Mexico: INEGI Household consumption survey. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia Mexico. Available at : http://www.inegi.org.mx/ Japan: Statistics Bureau Family Income and Expenditure Survey. Available at: http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htm United States: BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labour Statistics. Avialable at: http://www.bls.gov/cex/

Other readings Brookings (2006), The Affordability Index: A new Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, January 2006. Ferdous et al (2010), A Comprehensive Analysis of Household Transportation Expenditurs Relative to Other Goods and Services: An Application to United States Consumer Expenditure Data. Glaeser et al (2008), Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation, Journal of urban Economics 63 (2008), pp. 1-24. Harington et al (2008), Obesogenic island: the financial burden of private transport on low-income households, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp 38-44.

17