A Comparison of Consumer 

Expenditure Surveys

Brett McBride and Nhien To

Division of Consumer Expenditure Survey

CE Survey Methods Symposium

July 16, 2013
 

Background

 Input for Consumer Expenditure (CE) 

Gemini Survey Redesign

 Design features of 35 countries’ 

household expenditure surveys

 Surveys selected based on the diversity 

of their characteristics and the extent of 

information provided

2
 

Information Sources

 Survey information was collected from:

Program websites

Methodology reports

E-mail correspondence with survey 

representatives

3
 

General Survey 

Characteristics

 For each survey, the following general 

survey characteristics were collected:

Country and survey name

Achieved sample size and year 

Response rate

Data collection method

Reference period

4
 

Notable Design Features

 Notable Design Features 

Individual Diaries

Receipts

Incentives

Administrative Records

Technology

 Recent Survey Redesigns

5
 

General Survey Characteristics:

Achieved Sample Size

 Germany had the largest sample size (2008)

Conducted every 5 years

81,530 target; 55,110 completes 

 U.S.’ CE had second largest (2010)

Unique in using two independent samples

72,000 target; 50,442 completes

 Denmark had the smallest (2010)

858 completes

Data aggregated across three years

6
 

General Survey Characteristics:

Response Rates

 Lowest response rate: 18% in Luxembourg

 Highest response rate: 89% in Cyprus

 Average across the (33) surveys was 60%

7
 

General Survey Characteristics:

Data Collection Method

 Almost all countries used at least two 

instruments (an interview/questionnaire and 

a separate diary)

 Some countries used individual diaries in 

addition to household diaries

 Population registries also used as source of 

data in some countries

8
 

General Survey Characteristics:

Reference Period

 Interview: Survey question reference periods 

either 1, 3, or 12 months

 Diary: Almost all countries had respondents 

enter purchases over 14-day period

Exceptions included periods of 7 days, 1-2 

months, or 3 years

9
 

Notable Design Features: 

Individual Diaries

 Age of eligibility to complete individual diaries varied, 

most commonly 15 years old and older

Exception: UK Children’s diary (ages between 7 - 15)

 Only France, Ireland required that all fill out diary for 

household to be counted as a complete

 Spain had (2-week) diary for the ‘housekeeper’, and 

separate (1-week) personal expense diaries 

75% of recruited households had all diaries filled out

10

Cyprus, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, 

the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the 

United Kingdom
 

Notable Design Features: 

Individual Diaries (cont.)

11
 

Notable Design Features: 

Receipts

12

 Estonia: about 30% of households only 

provided receipts (2011) 

3-5% of receipts had insufficient level of detail

 Ireland asks households to annotate food 

receipts 

Weight or volume of food

Bought online

Canada, Estonia, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Romania, 

Sweden, United States
 

Notable Design Features: 

Receipts (cont.)

13
 

Notable Design Features: 

Incentives

 Only two countries structured incentives at 

the person-level (Ireland, United Kingdom)

 Belgium’s incentives varied by household size: 

75€ (1-2 people) to 124€ (6+) (2010) 

 Incentives mainly contingent upon survey 

participation

14

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, 

Hong Kong, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, 

Slovakia, South Korea, Spain and the United Kingdom
 

Notable Design Features: 

Incentives (cont.) 

 Monetary incentives varied in amount

$10 min in South Korea to 124€ max in Belgium 

 Non-monetary incentives used

Lottery in Denmark 

Pen and expenditure information in Estonia

 South Korea offered incentive contingent on 

completion AND diary type

If paper diary - $10

If web diary - $40

If web diary linked to account/bank records - $50

15
 

Notable Design Features: 

Administrative Records

16

 Data taken from administrative records

Income (all countries above)

Education (Denmark, Finland, Norway)

Property tax/taxable benefits (Denmark, Sweden)

Housing (Denmark, the Netherlands)

 The Netherlands also used demographic data 

from population registries for non-response 

adjustments

Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, 

Sweden
 

Notable Design Features: 

Technology

17

 Belgium found 15%-20% chose to enter data via 

the website when given option (vs. paper)

 The Netherlands collected 100% of data online 

(2012) 

Developed instructional tutorials

Included downloadable diary, online questionnaire

Found (still) low response rates, but cost savings

 The Netherlands tutorial (in Dutch):

https://www.budgetonderzoek.nl/Pagina/Instructiefilmpje

Online: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea
 

Recent Survey Redesigns

18

 Various objectives of household 

expenditure survey redesigns

Bolster response rates

Minimize respondent burden

Boost data quality and update design

Reduce costs

Belgium, Canada, Estonia, France, Lithuania, the 

Netherlands, Spain
 

Redesign: Estonia

19

 Concern – declining response rates (65% 

in 2000 to below 50% in 2007)

Limited expenditure entry to one diary

Reduced diary reporting period to 2 weeks (from 1 

month)

Removed income questions

Added few additional retrospective questions

 Achieved minor increase in response rates 

(38% to 42%)
 

Redesign: France

20

 Mandatory survey with large respondent 

burden (three one-hour interviews, a twoweek individual diary)

Removed one of the interviews

Reduced diary reporting period to one week

 Saw 2010-11 response rates return to 

2000 levels (above 75%)
 

Redesign: Spain

21

 Large-scale restructuring of survey design

Moved from quarterly to annual data collection

Increased diary reporting period from one to two 

weeks (household diary) 

Removed some interview questions 

Introduced 30€ gift card as incentive

 Response rates ‘at similar levels’ (71%)

 Some drop-off in reporting of expenditures in 

second week of diary data collection

 Improved overall reporting (more 

expenditures)
 

Summary

22

 Common themes, innovations in others countries’ 

design characteristics can inform CE Survey 

program’s redesign efforts

 CE Survey shares similar data collection methods, but 

uniquely uses two independent samples

 Among notable design features, only commonality is 

CE Survey encouraging respondent use of records 

and receipts
 

Summary (cont.)

23

 Few common notable design features, but 

similar intentions moving forward

Incorporation of new (online) technologies 

Data collection at individual-level 

Motivating respondents through incentives
 

Applications

24

 Ongoing research has led to suggestions, 

many of which are also recommended in the 

Gemini Design Proposal

Sample size: explore the use of a single sample

Individual diaries: identify various ways to 

encourage individual reporting (Ireland, Spain)

Records/receipts: encourage use of records and 

receipts (Canada, Ireland)

Incentives/modes: boost response rates, 

respondent use of lower-cost collection modes 

(South Korea, Estonia, Spain)
 

Applications (cont.)

25

Technology: learn how web can effectively be 

implemented (the Netherlands, Belgium, South 

Korea, Germany) 

Burden: learn from redesigns that reduced 

reporting burden (France, Estonia, Canada)

Administrative records: consider use of 

administrative data (Scandinavian countries)
 

Conclusion

26

 Survey programs can benefit from communicating 

best practices for effectively collecting high quality 

data, and sharing lessons learned from testing new 

features and implementing new survey designs
 

Acknowledgments

27

The following program staff provided information on 

their countries’ budget surveys:

Johanna Janecek (Austria); Véronique Renard, Genviève Geenens

(Belgium); Nikolay Valkov (Bulgaria); Jean-Louis Tambay, 

Johanne Tremblay (Canada); Ivana Miličić (Croatia); 

Henrik Sørensen (Denmark); Aira Veelmaa, Piret Tikva (Estonia); 

Vincent Leung (Hong Kong); Eva Menesi (Hungary); 

Christina Moriarty, Jim Linehan (Ireland); Gražina Žiūrienė 

(Lithuania); May Offermans, Peter Kruiskamp (The Netherlands); 

Witold Wozniak (Poland); Šedivý Jaroslav, Vladimír Čičmanec

(Slovakia); GooHyun Jung (South Korea); María Valverde (Spain); 

Åsa Karlsson (Sweden); Linda Williams, Carl David (United 

Kingdom)
Contact Information

Brett McBride

Economist

Division of Consumer Expenditure Surveys

Office of Prices and Living Conditions

www.bls.gov/cex

202-691-5136

mcbride.brett@bls.gov