OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport

7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport

1/17

1

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 findingsshow 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.


2/17

2

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 ofhousehold 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)

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.12

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.

1 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. 2 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

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bulg

aria

Rom

ania

FYR

OM

Lithuania

Poland

Slov

akia

Cro

atia

Ja

pan

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Tu

rkey

La

tvia

Netherlands

CzechRepu

blic

Ireland

EU

-27

Italy

Belg

ium

Portugal

Swe

den

Germ

any

France

UnitedKingdom

Denm

ark

Me

xico

Hungary

Cyprus

Slovenia

Finland

Austria

Luxembourg

M

alta

UnitedSt

ates

Nor

way

Miscellaneous goods and services

Restaurants and hotels

Education

Recreation and culture

Communications

Health

Furnishings, household equipment and

routine maintenance of the house

Clothing and footwear

Food and non-alcoholic beverages

Housing, water, electricity, gas a nd other

fuels

Transport


3/17

3

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 arevariations 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 (%)

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 growneven 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 Denmark France Italy United States

Food 2.3 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.6

Transport 2.7 1.6 2.4 2.7 2.9

Housing 4.1 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.7

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005


4/17

4

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 takesinto 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 (%)

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 1.8times 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.

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

%

GDP / capita (PPP $US)

Luxembourg

NorwayUSA

Iceland

AustriaFinland

Malta

Slovenia

Cyprus

Mexico Hungary

Portugal

Switzerland

Japan

Netherlands

Bulgaria

FYROMRomania

Turkey Latvia

Estonia

CroatiaGreece

Czech Rep

Korea

Spain

Italy Australia Ireland

Poland Slovak Rep

Lithuania

New Zealand

SwedenGermanyBelgium

CanadaUK

Denmark

Average

Average

Trend


5/17

5

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

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

l

ri i

Trkey

l

Lxe

r

Est

i

FY

Slvei

rt

l

Lithuania

l

ilt

ite

i

ti

E

-

er

y

e

rk

z

li

eli

I

lLtvi

r

y

t

lS

ee

il

J

iteS

ttes

stri

S

i

%

Fifth quintile

Fourth quintile

Third quintile

Second quintile

First quintile

x4

x1.2

x1.8

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

First quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Fifth quintile


6/17

6

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

Source: OECD

Figure 7. Evolution of the transport spending structure 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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SLOVAKREPUBLIC

KOREA

FRANCE

POLAND

AUSTRIA

BELGIUM

ITALY

SWEDEN

CZECHREPUBLIC

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRALIA

FINLAND

UNITEDKINGDOM

UNITEDSTATES

SPAIN

HUNGARY

GERMANY

LUXEMBOURG

NORWAY

ICELAND

MEXICO

IRELAND

GREECE

CANADA

DENMARK

Transport services

Operation of vehicles

Purchase of vehicles

0%

50%

100%USA KOREA ITALY FRANCE DENMARK AUSTRALIA

1970 2008

Transport services

Operation of personal

vehicles

Purchase of vehicles

197 0 2008 197 0 2008 1 970 200 8 1970 2008 1970 2008


7/17

7

(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

Source: Eurostat

Figure 9. Household spending in the USA 2005

Source: US HBS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Romania

Poland

Slovakia

Estonia

Latvia

Croatia

Italy

CzechRepublic

Turkey

EU-27

Netherlands

Greece

Spain

Belgium

Portugal

UnitedKingdom

Denmark

Ireland

Hungary

Sweden

France

Cyprus

Austria

Finland

Slovenia

Malta

Norway

Luxembourg

Other purchased transport services

Combined passenger transport

Passenger transport by sea and inland waterway

Passenger transport by air

Passenger transport by railway

Passenger transport by road

Other services in respect of personal transport equipment

Spares parts and accessories for personal transport

equipment

Maintenance and repair of personal transport equipment

Fuels and lubricants for personal transport equipment

Bicycles

Motor cycles

Motor cars

42

52

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Transport services

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

55

43

3

Other vehicles

Cars used

Cars new

46

22

15

11

6 Vehicle finance charges

Other vehicle charges

Maintenance and repairs

Vehicle insurance

Gasoline and motor oil


8/17

8

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 sharehouseholds 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 (%)

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 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

Purchase of vehicles 223 324 621 938 1782

Operation of

vehicles

491 602 1018 1464 1782

Transport services 167 151 224 297 418

Source: Eurostat. PPS refer to Purchasing Power Standards which are derived from those expressed

in national currency by applying purchasing power parities (PPP).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Transport service s

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

q1

25 3033 35

45

5656 55

5445

19 1412 11 10

quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5

3240 40 44 45

6356 55 52 47

5 4 4 4 7


11 1623

1525

5456

5659

48

3427 22 26 27


Transport services

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

EU-27 United States Japan


9/17

9

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)

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 youngestconsumers 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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sweden

Estonia

UnitedKingdom

Norway

FYROM

Netherlands

Ireland

Austria

Germany

EU-27

Cyprus

France

CzechRepublic

Finland

Greece

Slovenia

Denmark

Malta

Turkey

Belgium

Spain

Luxembourg

Croatia

Poland

Latvia

Hungary

Lithuania

Portugal

Slovakia

Bulgaria

Romania

%

Less than 30 years

Between 30 and 44

years

Between 45 and 59

years

60 years and over

x1.1

x1.5

x4


10/17

10

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


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Transport service s

Operation ofvehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

Less than 30 yrs 30-44 yrs 45-59 yrs +60 yrs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

q1

42 45 43 41

4243 43

28

17 13 13

30

< 30 30-44 45-59 +60

Transport

services

Operation

of vehicles

Purchase

of vehicles

46 45 44 41 42 39

51 51 51 54 52 54

3 4 5 6 6 7

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

61

80 76 74 7563

39

20 24 26 2537

< 30 30-39 40-4950-5960-69 +70

Public

transport

Private

transport


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Less than 30 years Between 30 and 44 years Between 45 and 59 years 60 years and over


11/17

11

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 inemployment. 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)

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 (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ireland

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Denmark

EU-27

Germany

Austria

Italy

CzechRepublic

Belgium

Finland

Netherlands

Spain

Croatia

France

Sweden

UnitedKingdom

Greece

Hungary

Estonia

Slovenia

Turkey

Poland

Bulgaria

Latvia

Lithuania

Slovakia

%

Self-employed

Non manual workers in industry and

servicesManual workers in industry and

servicesInactive population - Other

Unemployment

Retired

x1.5x1.4 x3.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Transport services

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

Manual workers Non-manual workers Self-employed Unemployed Retired

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

q1

41 38 3929 37 31

50 52 5057

5249

9 10 12 14 11 19

36 41 4346

59 54 5148

5 5 6 5

Transport

services

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

82 8371 69 66 70

18 1729 31 34 30 Public

transport

Private

transport



12/17

12

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 transportthan 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)

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 thehousehold, 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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Lux

embourg

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

%

Single person

Single parent with

dependent childrenTwo adults

Two adults with

dependent childrenThree or more adults

Three or more adults with

dependent children

x1.3

x1.8

x4.2


13/17

13

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


0%

20%

40%

60%80%

100%Transport services

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

Single person Single parent Two adults Two adults with children Three adults Three adults and children

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

q1

23 1928 27 27 30

5960

62 61 62 57

18 2110 12 11 13

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

3744 46 44

5852 48 52

5 4 6 5

Single 1+ dep 2 adults 2+dep

Transport

services

Operation

of vehicles

Purchase ofvehicles

6273 79 77

80 83

3827 21 23

20 17

1 per 2 per 3 pe r 4 pe r 5 per 6 pe r

Public

transport

Private

transport


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

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


14/17

14

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 sparselypopulated 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)

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

Slv

il r

y

reece

E

-27

r

y

y

rs

li

en

ark

zc

lic

Fr

c

Fil

ry

rt

l

Slvki

it

i

S

i

nitesStates

stri It

l

SL

tvi

L

x

r

l

ri

r

ti

Esti

%

Sparsely populated

area

Intermediate

urbanized area

Densely-populated

area

x1.04

x1.1

x1.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Transport service s

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles

De nse ly-populated Inte rme diate urbanize d Sparsely populated

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

q1

41 43 41

4547 49

14 10 10

Densely pop Interm Sparsely pop

27 30 25

64 64 72

9 6 4

Central city Other urban Rural

16 22 20 20 22

44

54 58 6062

4025 22 20

15

Maj c ity Midd le c i Smal l A Smal l B Vi ll age

Transport services

Operation of

vehicles

Purchase of

vehicles



15/17

15

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)

Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.

Figure 22. Transport spending (% of total) in urban China 2004 and 2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Rural 1999 Rural 2004 Rural 2008 Urban 2004Urban 2008

Transport

Transport and Communications

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Urban 2004

Urban 2008


16/17

16

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 increasesproportionally more than for any other consumption item (Figure 24).

Figure 23. Household transport and communications spending by income group

in urban China in 2008

Figure 24. Strucuture of household spending by income in China in 2008

(% of total spending)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Lowest income

(first decile)

Low income

(second decile)

Low middle

(second

quintile)

Middle (third

quintile)

Upper middle

(fourth

quintile)

High income

(ninth decile)

Higest income

(tenth decile)

48.1

37.9

29.2

7.6

12.6

18.5

9.4

12.114.7

7.17.0

5.9

8.810.4

9.8

12.310.2

9.9

4.26.2

7.1

2.5 3.7 4.9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lowest income Average Highest income

Miscellaneous Goods and Services

Household Facilities, Articles and Services

Residence

Clothing

Health Care and Medical Services

Education, Cultural and Recreation Services

Transport and Communications

Food


17/17

17

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 toOther 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.
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://www.inegi.org.mx/http://www.inegi.org.mx/http://www.inegi.org.mx/http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htmhttp://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/cex/http://www.bls.gov/cex/http://www.bls.gov/cex/http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htmhttp://www.inegi.org.mx/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/

Documents

OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport