Strengths and Weaknesses of the Consumer Expenditure Survey 

from a BLS Perspective 

Thesia I. Garner 

Robert McClelland 

William Passero 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Washington, DC 

National Bureau of Economic Research, Summer Institute 2009 

Conference on Research on Income and Wealth 

joint with 

Aggregate Implications of Microeconomic Consumption Behavior Workshop 

July 13, 2009 

Cambridge, MA 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are extended to William Hawk and Aylin Kumcu for research assistance in preparing this 

document, and to Karen Goldenberg, Steve Henderson, Michael Horrigan, John Rogers, and Jay 

Ryan for comments on an earlier draft. All views expressed in this article are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the views of 

other staff members. The authors take full responsibility for any errors. 

July10, 2009 
July 9, 2009 1
I. Introduction 

From the start of the ongoing Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) in 1980, expenditure 

estimates from CE data have been compared regularly with corresponding expenditure estimates 

from other data sources to evaluate both the soundness of the CE estimates at any point in time 

and the consistency of the estimates over time. In 1987, Raymond Gieseman, the first economist 

at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the Bureau, BLS) to conduct this work using the continuing 

survey data, anticipated that these comparisons would provide “...a sense of degree and direction 

of possible survey errors, rather than an exact measure of bias, because the specific estimates 

from other sources are not necessarily the ‘true’ values.”1

 In conjunction with other evaluation 

tools, data comparisons are employed to assess the cumulative effects of non-sampling errors on 

the quality of data obtained from the CE and to develop methodological studies to improve that 

quality.2

 

Comparisons of CE and Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) data have been 

conducted by researchers both inside and outside the Bureau.3

 Research over the last 20 years 

has used the CE and the PCE to assess economic growth and other economic trends.4 Other 

 

1

 Raymond Gieseman, “The Consumer Expenditure Survey: quality control by comparative analysis,” Monthly 

Labor Review, March 1987, pp. 8-14, quote from p. 9. 2

 The CE survey consists of two components: a weekly Diary Survey and a Quarterly Interview Survey. Simply put, 

in the former, respondents fill out two consecutive 1-week expenditure diaries. In the latter, respondents report 

expenditures via personal interview every three months. Each CE component is described more fully later in this 

article. Early methodological work has included the use of a supplementary Diary administered to respondents and 

interviewers to measure attitudes and behaviors associated with keeping the Diary, and the use of different formats 

for the Diary instrument. More recent work includes the testing of computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) 

for the collection of Interview data. Findings of this latter study led to the use of a CAPI instrument to collect data in 

the Interview since April 1, 2003. 

3

 One of the earliest comparisons by outside researchers was conducted by Henrik S. Houthakker and Lester D. 

Taylor, and was published as Consumer Demand in the United States: Analyses and Projections, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 

MA, Harvard University Press, 1970). In this work, the authors compared 1960-61 CE data with PCE aggregate 

expenditures. (See also Slesnick, “Aggregate Consumption and Saving,” who cites Houthakker and Taylor.) 

4

 For example, Attanasio and Weber, “Is Consumption Growth Consistent,” and Jonathan A. Parker and Bruce 

Preston, “Precautionary Saving and Consumption Fluctuations,” American Economic Review, September 2005, pp. 

1119-1143, use CE data to focus on consumption growth; Barry Bosworth, Gary Burtless, and John Sabelhaus, “The 

Decline in Saving: Evidence from Household Surveys,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 1991, no. 1 

July 9, 2009 2
research has focused on the quality of CE data, compared with PCE data, as the former affects 

the CPI.5

 But other datasets such as the American Community Survey (ACS), Current 

Population Survey (CPS), Health and Retirement Survey Consumption and Activities Mail 

Survey (HRS-CAMS), Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP) have also been compared to the CE. 

As part of an ongoing review of various programs, the BLS recently evaluated the CE 

program. While the review included many strengths of the CE program such as its dedication to 

ongoing research on challenges in the CE, and its outreach to customers, it also described some 

weaknesses. For example, although the CE Interview is designed to collect data using personal 

interviews, there has been an increasing reliance on telephone interviews to collect data with no 

guidelines for proper telephone interviewing established (McGrath, 2005; Safir and Goldenberg, 

2008). In addition, in spite of analyses such Dahlhamer et. al. (2003), which showed that the 

non-response rates for some important items were comparable or below those of other surveys, 

the assessment concluded that certain expenditure estimates are subject to bias caused by underreporting in the form of item non-response. 

The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of the CE 

data found in the internal BLS review of the CE Program and in recent research in which the data 

 

(1991), pp. 183-241, examine CE and PCE data with regard to the decline in savings in the United States; and Jesús 

Fernandez-Villaverde and Dirk Krueger, “Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts from Consumer Expenditure 

Survey Data,” unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania and University of Frankfurt, 2004, use CE data 

to examine consumption over the life cycle of consumer units using the reference person’s age to identify cohorts. 5

 For example, see Jack E. Triplett, “Measuring Consumption: The Post-1973 Slowdown and the Research Issues,” 

Federal Research Bank of St. Louis Review, May-June 1997, pp. 9-42; Dennis Fixler and Ted Jaditz, “An 

Examination of the Difference Between the CPI and the PCE Deflator,” Working Paper 361 (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2002); David S. Johnson and John Greenlees, “Comparison of Movements in the CPI and PCE Price 

Indexes,” paper presented to the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC) (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, March 21, 2003); David E. Lebow and Jeremy B. Rudd, “Measurement Error in the Consumer Price 

Index: Where Do We Stand?” Journal of Economic Literature, March 2003, pp. 159-201; and Charles L. Schultze 

and Christopher Mackie, eds., At What Price? Conceptualizing and Measuring Cost-of-Living and Price Indexes, 

July 9, 2009 3
have been used. In addition, it offers an update of the comparison of CE and the PCE found in 

Garner et al. (2006), with a discussion of differences between PCE and CE estimates and 

possible reasons for them. 

II. Internal Review of the Consumer Expenditure Survey 

As part of its ongoing attempts to maintain high standards of data quality, the BLS 

reviews the programs responsible for producing data. These reviews use subject matter experts 

from other programs in the BLS to examine issues such as finance, data collection and 

accessibility of the data. While the reviews describe the strengths of the program they also 

discuss some of the weaknesses and provide recommendations for improvement. 

In November 2008 a two-year review of the Division of Consumer Expenditure Surveys 

was completed. A number of strengths were identified, including the production of public use 

data and associated workshops focused on CE data collection and data analysis, the production 

and planning tools used by the CE Division, the Division’s customer service and the quality of 

the division's self-assessment. 

Since the collection of the 1972-73 CE data, public use data have been made available to 

the public. These data have been used extensively by researchers outside the BLS. Examples of 

recent research using the CE public use data include work by Attanasio et al. (2006, 2007), 

Blisard and Stewart (2007), Charles et al. (2007), Hurd and Rohwedder (200?), Malloy et al. 

(2008), Meyer et al. (2009), Meyer and Sullivan (2008, 2009), Parker and Preston (2005), Parker 

and Vissing-Jorgensen (2009), Stewart et al. (2004). In addition, beginning in 2006 CE User 

Workshops have been held each summer at the BLS for both new and experienced users of the 

CE data. These workshops include presentations of the latest in CE data collection methods, 

 

Panel on Conceptual, Measurement, and Other Statistical Issues in Developing Cost-of-Living Indexes (Washington, 

July 9, 2009 4
processing and advances in research conducted with the data; the workshops are advertised 

widely and are free to attend. The workshops are not only venues to present research; they are 

also intended to provide support to novice users on issues such as top-coding and creating usable 

data sets from the CE files. More sophisticated topics such as using weights for estimation, and 

using multiply imputed variables are also covered. 

The production and planning tools used by the CE Division include a project oversight 

team that has developed best practices and in-house training; a database housing all 

development, research and production project plans; and a web-based interface for project 

management and reporting. The web based reporting tool includes a summary report of all 

projects showing their status, end dates, and links to the project plans. The division uses 

innovative methods for tracking multiple production processes, such as a database to track 

testing progress and another database to track questionnaire revisions. During the final review, 

BLS management recommended that several of the underlying concepts and processes developed 

and used by the CE Division should be applied to other BLS programs. 

As part of the division’s self-assessment, staff members communicate with users of CE 

data. For example, staff members regularly meet with staff from the CPI division. These 

meetings are of particular importance because the expenditure weights from the CE are essential 

for the CPI. The user workshops also provide an important avenue of communication between 

the CE program and users of the data. 

In addition, the CE division strives to improve data quality through focus groups with CE 

field interviewers. For example, as a result of focus group sessions, the division incorporated 

references to new payment systems, such as e-dollars and gift cards into the surveys. 

 

DC, National Academy Press, 2002). Triplett also examined the relationship between the PCE deflator and the CPI. 

July 9, 2009 5
The division has conducted research on important topics including declining response 

rates, under-reporting, and the increase in phone interviews versus in-person interviews (see 

Safir and Goldenberg, 2008). The problem of under-reporting has been carefully analyzed in 

papers such as Dahlhamer et al. (2003), Shields and To (2005), and Garner et al. (2006). 

In spite of these strengths, the program review also identified a well known weakness: 

there is evidence that some CE expenditure estimates are biased due to item non-response and 

measurement error. Even though Dahlhamer et. al. (2003) suggests that for several important 

variables response rates in the CE compare well with those of other surveys, other items may 

suffer from more serious non-response problems. 

Further, bias may be caused by more than simple item non-response. “Conditioned 

underreporting” would also create biases. This type of underreporting occurs when respondents 

falsely respond “no” to screening questions about a general category in order to speed up the 

interview. Shields and To (2005) examines this question and finds weak evidence that this is 

occurring in the Quarterly Interview Survey. Research by Tucker, Meekins, and others suggests 

that latent class analysis may be useful in exploring this type of underreporting. Safir and 

Goldenberg (2008) also reported that there is evidence of mode effect measurement error 

(specifically, fewer “yes” responses to “embedded screener” questions on the phone; and if the 

screener response is “no,” the whole question series gets skipped). 

III. Comparisons of the CE Data to Data from Other Sources 

A number of studies have provided evidence of comparable data from the CE surveys and 

other household surveys, while others suggest substantial differences between CE aggregates and 

Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE). Yet in some comparisons, such as CE health care 

July 9, 2009 6
expenditures and data from the National Health Expenditures Accounts (NHEA) and food 

expenditures from the Economic Research Service (ERS), the differences are smaller. 

Household survey data have their strengths and weaknesses as do national account 

compilations of expenditures aggregates. An advantage of household survey data is that they are 

collected from individuals who make expenditures for themselves or on behalf of others in their 

families, households, or consumer units.6 These data are collected using computer-assisted 

personal interviews, face-to-face and by telephone, and record-keeping diaries. Representative 

samples of individuals, families or consumer units participate in the surveys. This same strength 

is also a weakness in that data are collected from samples and thus are subject to sampling errors. 

When surveys are used, non-response and underreporting are cited as sources of bias in survey 

estimates. In addition, non-sampling errors too can be introduced in processing the data for final 

use. 

A strength of compilations of expenditure aggregates, like the PCE and NHEA, is that 

they provides estimates of aggregate expenditures for commodities purchased for consumption 

by and on behalf of households. The PCE provides the most extensive list of commodities while 

the NHEA focuses on health care only. A weakness of such aggregates is that they are subject to 

(1) measurement errors in the censuses and sampling and non-sampling errors in surveys upon 

which the compilations are based and (2) judgment errors by the staff members in the estimation 

and allocation of production or output to the personal sector and other sectors in constructing the 

national accountings. 

 

6

 A consumer unit comprises (1) all members of a particular household who are related by blood, marriage, 

adoption, or some other legal arrangement; (2) a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a 

roomer in a private home or lodging house or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially 

independent; or (3) two or more persons living together who use their income to make joint expenditure decisions. 

Financial independence is determined by the three major expense categories: housing, food, and other living 

July 9, 2009 7
Typically, expenditures from the CE are compared with expenditures gathered from 

alternative household surveys such as the HRS-CAMS or the PSID. Comparing total 

expenditures and its component expenditures from one survey with those from another may 

provide only weak evidence that a problem exists. As noted by Meyer, Mok, and Sullivan (2009) 

in their comparison of data from the CE Interview Survey, CPS, PSID, and SIPP, even if the 

responses from different surveys are approximately equal then any bias in one dataset may exist 

in the other as well. Differences in CE aggregates and PCE aggregates have been traced to 

differences in population, the definitions of expenditures, as well as to sources of the underlying 

data (Garner et al., 2006; Meyer and Sullivan, 2009). In addition, PCE numbers “...are the 

product of a great deal of estimation and imputation that is subject to error” (Meyer and Sullivan, 

2009, p. 13). 

A. Health and Retirement Study 

The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is a longitudinal survey of respondents 51 years 

of age or older in the initial wave, and their households. Because it is more of a general purpose 

survey, it contains far less detail about household expenditures than is contained in the CE. In 

2001 the Consumption and Activities Mail Survey (CAMS) was mailed to 5,000 households that 

participated in the year 2000 wave of the HRS. In October 2003 a second, modified, wave was 

mailed, with subsequent mailings in 2005 and 2007. The survey contains much less detail than is 

available in the CE. While the reduction in detail was meant to decrease respondent burden, it 

may lead to an underestimate of expenditures. 

Hurd and Rohwedder (April 2008) examine HRS-CAMS in detail, and compare 

expenditures from the mail collection of these data to expenditures collected using the CE Diary 

 

expenses. To be considered financially independent, at least two of the three major expense categories have to be 

July 9, 2009 8
and Interview Surveys. Aggregate expenditures for various expenditure categories, collected in 

both the CE and HRS-CAMS, are approximately the same. However, in the HRS the implied 

savings rate calculated by subtracting expenditures from after-tax income is substantially higher 

than the savings rate calculated from the change in assets. The savings rate calculated from the 

difference between after-tax income and expenditures is higher than either savings rate 

calculated from the HRS. This suggests that either expenditures are too low in the CE or after-tax 

income in the CE is too high. In a subsequent study, Hurd and Rohwedder (November 2008) 

examined the impact of recall periods on the level of expenditures; as a result of this study they 

recommended a change in question wording for expenditures in the HRS-CAMS. 

B. Population Study of Income Dynamics 

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) began in 1968 with approximately 5,000 

families, including a low-income over-sample. Members of the families have been followed 

since that time; by 1997 the sample had grown to 10,000. Due to budget cuts the sample was 

trimmed to 6,500 families. When weighted, the sample is representative of the U.S. population. 

Since 1997 the sample has been interviewed biannually with 97 percent of the families 

interviewed by phone and the remaining in person. Since inception, the PSID has included 

expenditures questions. However, before 1999, questions were limited to a few expenditure 

types such as food, housing, and child care. In 1999, additional questions were added including 

those for health care, education and transportation. The full set of expenditure questions were 

asked also in 2001 and 2003. 

In a study of consumption and intergenerational transmissions of well-being, Charles et 

al. (2007) examined PSID expenditures relative to CE Interview Survey expenditures. They 

 

provided entirely or in part by the respondent. 

July 9, 2009 9
compared expenditures for CE-PSID comparable commodity groups for the years 1999, 2001, 

and 2003. These researchers found that for all categories, PSID and CE spending aligned fairly 

closely. For 2001, total housing aligned exactly. Total food was 8 percent higher in the PSID 

than from the CE Interview (a wording change for the food away from home question in the CE 

Interview in 2007 quarter two should eliminate this difference). Total transportation spending in 

PSID was 6 percent lower than in the CE. Food, housing and transportation accounted for 86 

percent of spending in the PSID. In 2003, PSID total spending was 1 percent higher than CE 

total spending for comparable categories. PSID spending was 10 percent higher than CE 

Interview spending for food, 13 percent higher for education, 26 percent higher for child care, 

and 14 percent higher for health care. CE Interview spending was 3 percent higher than PSID 

for housing and 7 percent higher for transportation. 

C. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and National Health Expenditures 

Accounts (NHEA) 

 The MEPS is a household-based survey that contains individual and household level data. 

The survey began in 1996 to collect data on health care expenditures and use, health insurance 

coverage, and a wide range of other health-related socioeconomic characteristics. Like the CE, 

the MEPS data are using an over-lapping panel design, introducing new households into the 

survey sample each year. Data are collected from individuals with additional verification from 

providers in select cases, for example, for physicians’ services. In a current study, Foster (2009 

forthcoming) compares the MEPS data to CE data for 1996 to 2006. Also in this study, she 

compares the CE data to the National Health Expenditures Accounts (NHEA). Foster notes 

differences in the CE, MEPS, and NHEA regarding scope and methods for the three data 

sources. Foster reports CE to MEPS ratios for total health care spending ranged from 0.68 to 

July 9, 2009 10
0.93 over the time period with the highest ratios for hospital care and the lowest for prescription 

drugs. CE to NHEA ratios ranged from 0.72 to 0.86, with the highest ratios for prescription drugs 

and the lowest for physicians’ services. 

D. ACNielsen (ACN) Homescan Survey 

 The ACN Homescan Survey recruits about 55,000 households based on targeted 

demographics and geographic variables. Households stay in the quota sample for essentially as 

long as they would like. When a household drops out of the sample, a demographically similar 

household replaces the drop-out. The Homescan survey is conducted to collect information for 

marketing purposes. The majority of the data is for grocery store types items including those for 

food at home purchases. ACN Homescan sample survey household members are to scan 

barcodes on all purchased goods. When a barcode is not available, members use a book with 

ACN-created barcodes. Items without barcodes on packaging include items such as fresh 

produce, meats and deli items. 

Duly et al. (2003) compared CE Diary Survey data to ACN Homescan data from 2000. 

The purpose of the study was to determine whether the Homescan data could be used in the place 

of the CE Diary or in conjunction with CE Diary data. The basic conclusion was that the 

Homescan survey does not collect adequate types or levels of expenditures for use by the BLS. 

Only 45 percent of CE Diary items were covered by the Homescan survey. The percentage of 

Diary food at home items covered by the Homescan data was 83 percent. The major categories 

best covered by the Homescan data, in terms of the number of detailed categories that could be 

mapped to the CE Diary variables were: food at home, alcoholic beverages at home, laundry and 

cleaning supplies, nonprescription drugs and vitamins, and personal care produces. Total 

expenditures (the sum of all expenditures reported by both surveys) from the Homescan data 

July 9, 2009 11
were 57 percent of CE Diary expenditures. Homescan food at home expenditures were twothirds those of CE expenditures. Homescan alcohol and tobacco expenditures were half those of 

CE Diary expenditures. 

E. Income and Transfer Comparisons 

While it is typically expenditure data from the CE survey that are compared with similar 

measures from other sources, income data from the CE survey have also been compared with 

income data from other sources. For example, Meyer and Sullivan (2007) compare the income of 

families headed by a single mother estimated from both the CE survey and the CPS. They find 

the two data sets produce similar changes in mean income between 1993-1995 and 1997-2000. 

They also note that the average levels of income from CE surveys before 2004 were well below 

comparable levels in the CPS because a large share of CPS income is imputed while income 

imputations in the CE Survey only started in 2004. 

Meyer, Mok, and Sullivan (2009) focus their research specifically on transfers in the CE 

Interview and other household surveys including the PSID, SIPP, CPS and American 

Community Survey. Among the benefit programs considered were family assistance, food 

stamps, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment insurance payments, and workers 

compensation. Meyer et al. reported that the CE typically had the lowest reporting rates of 

transfer benefits and the SIPP had the highest rate for most programs. For 2006, Meyer et al. 

reported that 38 percent of administrative totals are represented by the CE Interview. In a 

separate analysis, we found that 47 percent of the administrative totals for 2006 were accounted 

for if Diary data were used. 

 Passero (2009) compares incomes from the CE Survey and CPS both before and after 

2004. The first step was to select the appropriate consumer units in the CE so that income covers 

July 9, 2009 12
a calendar year, as in the CPS. Replicating the method used to produce income estimates in the 

published tables comparing CE income and CPS income, he shows that for the years 2002 and 

2003, income from the CE was about 75 percent of the income in the CPS. Imputations for 

income have had a dramatic effect. For the years 2004 through 2006 income from the CE 

averaged 94 percent of income in the CPS. Wages and salaries in the CE survey, which makes up 

the largest share of income, was about 78 percent of the CPS for 2002 and 2003, but rose to 

about 97 percent of the CPS for the years 2004 through 2006. 

F. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Comparison 

There have been many comparisons of CE and PCE data over the years by researchers 

outside the Bureau of Labor Statistics and those within. The earliest comparisons were conduced 

by Houthakker and Taylor (1970) and Slesnick (1992, 1998), while more recent comparisons 

include Attanasio, Battistin, and Leicester (2006) and Meyer and Sullivan (2009). Since 1987, 

the BLS has been producing CE and PCE aggregate expenditure comparisons and made these 

available to the public. For this article, we focus on the more recent comparisons of CE and PCE, 

referring the reader to the earlier research of Houthakker and Taylor (1970) and Slesnick (1992, 

1998). 

Attanasio, Battistin, and Leicester (2006) examined U.K. and U.S. household survey data 

and aggregate national accounts expenditure data over a 20 to 30 year time span. The researchers 

use the national accounts data as a benchmark for the micro data based on the assumption that 

once the micro data are aggregated, they should follow the movements in the national accounts. 

One aim of the paper was to compare the household and national accounts data to stress that data 

quality is not invariant to different methods to construct the data. The authors suggest that 

improvements are needed in the quality of household data for both countries. The focus of the 

July 9, 2009 13
comparison was expenditures on total non-durables and services. The ratios of Family 

Expenditure Survey (FES) expenditures on non-durables to national accounts consumption 

expenditures were fairly high, around 95 percent, from 1974 through the mid 1990s. However, 

by 2002 the ratio captured by the FES fell to below 80 percent. Attanasio et al. (2006) reported 

that about 70 percent of total consumption expenditure is accounted from by the CE, and that the 

ratio of the CE to PCE aggregates was declining continuously from 1984 though 2004. Data 

from the CE Diary and Interview were used for this study. These comparisons were based on all 

expenditures in both the CE and PCE for the U.S. without regard to differences underlying the 

two series. 

 Garner et al. (2006) and Meyer and Sullivan (2009) note that about half of the difference 

between the CE and PCE expenditure aggregates are due to differences in concepts and 

comprehensiveness. For example, CE and PCE numbers cover different populations and are 

defined differently. In addition, PCE numbers, “... are the product of a great deal of estimation 

and imputation that is subject to error” (Meyer and Sullivan, 2009, p.13). The PCE coverage is 

wider than that of the CE, including purchases by nonprofits, purchases by those abroad, on 

military based and in institutions, free financial services, and employer-paid insurance. Also, as 

noted by both sets of authors, the BEA, in the creation of the PCE, derives estimates through a 

complex process that depends on input-output tables to input sales to final sector, wholesale and 

retail markups, and taxes. For most items, PCE expenditures are derived as residuals from 

government and business expenditures. 

Both Garner et al. (2006) and Meyer and Sullivan (2009) use methods to identify and 

compare expenditures for the most comparable groups of commodities and services. Meyer and 

Sullivan restrict their analysis to data from the CE Interview Survey while Garner et al. focus on 

July 9, 2009 14
data from the CE Diary and Interview combined. An advantage to using the combined data is 

that food at home and away from home expenditures are collected in detail in the Diary; in the 

Interview these are collected using global or summary questions. 

Meyer and Sullivan (2009) examine data from select years from 1972 through 2004. As 

reported earlier, there has been a steady decline in the ratio of CE to PCE aggregate 

expenditures. However, for particular commodity groups, the ratios are high. For example, for 

food at home, on average the CE/PCE ratio is over 0.85 and for rent plus utilities the ratio is 

nearly 1.0. Meyer and Sullivan surmise that the CE understates consumption of the poor but not 

nearly as much as for other groups. There are several categories for which CE/PCE ratios are 

quite low, for example, clothing, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages. The authors note that underreporting of these items reflect potential discretionary spending and irregular purchase. 

They find that core consumption, defined as food at home, rent plus utilities, 

transportation, gasoline, the value of owner-occupied housing, rental assistance, and the value of 

owned vehicles, accounted for about 73 percent of total consumption but 80 percent of the 

consumption of those near the poverty line. Based on their comparison of CE to PCE, they 

concluded that components of core consumption are reported well in the CE Interview. The 

CE/PCE ratios are quite high and they show only a slow decline over time, with the exception of 

gasoline and motor oil. For 1972, the ratio of aggregate CE to PCE expenditures was 1.03; by 

2004 the ratio had declined to 0.87. 

Beginning in 2006, the BLS has compared the CE and PCE with a new methodology that 

accounts for more of the differences in the CE and PCE than was possible earlier. With the new 

methodology, many fewer item categories are considered comparable than in past comparisons. 

Because Garner et al. (2006) present and compare the historical and new methodologies, this 

July 9, 2009 15
article focuses on updating the CE-PCE comparison using CE Diary and Interview data. We find 

that CE to PCE aggregate expenditures have been decreasing for most all categories of 

expenditures, and that CE and PCE aggregate estimates are becoming more disparate with time 

for select commodity groups. (See http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/09/art3full.pdf , for 

information regarding concepts and methods and a discussion of reasons for differences in CE 

and PCE aggregates.) 

As noted in Garner et al. (2006), although CE aggregates for a particular year may 

change occasionally due to previously undiscovered errors in the data, it is more likely that the 

trend the aggregates exhibits spikes or disjoint shifts over time. These aberrations coincide with 

changes in sample design, data collection methods, and data processing in the CE survey. In 

contrast, changes in PCE aggregates are retrospective. When a new year’s PCE aggregates are 

produced, the aggregates for previous years are often revised, due either to updated source data 

that the BEA has received in the interim or to the culmination of the benchmarking process. 

Table 1 includes aggregate expenditures for eight years: 1992, 1997, and 2002 through 

2007. All the aggregates in the table are based on 1997 PCE benchmark data, which include 

subsequent revisions by BEA. The PCE classifications applied for Table is based on type of 

product structure currently in effect currently; a new PCE classification system is to become

effective the end of July 2009 with the 13th comprehensive, or benchmark, revision of the 

national income and product accounts (NIPAs).7

 The three primary types of product are durable 

goods, nondurables goods, and services. A concordance was created to assign CE item codes to 

PCE product groups. Results are presented for all items in each group and for items that are 

deemed comparable based on definition and scope (See Garner et al. 2006, for details.) In some 

 

7

 See Kunze and McCulla (2008), McCully and Payson (2009), and McCully and Teensma (2008). 

July 9, 2009 16
cases, such as healthcare, the category is within the scope of both the CE survey and the PCE, 

but the operational definitions are sufficiently different to result in estimates that are not 

comparable. The full costs of healthcare are included in the PCE, but only the expenditures made 

by consumer units, net of third-party payments, are included in the CE survey definition. 

In addition to aggregates, CE/PCE ratios are also shown in Table 1. Within each type of 

grouping are total expenditures, expenditures of comparable items, the ratios of comparable 

items to all items covered in the CE and PCE separately, and the ratios of CE to PCE 

expenditures for comparables. In this paper, we focus on the CE/PCE ratios. 

PCE expenditure that are covered and in-scope for the CE account for 57 percent of total 

PCE expenditures in 1992. By 2002, the ratio had dropped to 52 percent and has remained 

unchanged through 2007. This is consistent with the findings of Slesnick (1992); he noted that 

approximately one-half of the difference between aggregates expenditures reported in the CE and 

PCE could be accounted for by definitional differences, and stated that reporting errors by 

households in the CE and PCE estimation procedures are possible reasons for the remaining 

disparity. However, he cautioned that underreporting in the CE not be assigned full blame for the 

differences in the estimated levels of aggregate expenditures.8

Returning to Table 1, the sum of comparable total durables, non-durables and services, 

aggregate expenditures were 86 percent of PCE aggregates for 1992, 85 percent in 1997. From 

2002 through 2007, the ratio varied between 81 to 82 percent, holding steady. 

When all categories of items, both comparables and non-comparables, are included, CE 

aggregate expenditures are 67 percent of PCE aggregates in 1992 and 65 percent in 1997. By 

2002, the ratio slips to 61 percent and varies between 59 and 61 percent for the remaining years. 

 

8

 Slesnick, “Aggregate Consumption and Saving,” ,1992, p. 594. 

July 9, 2009 17
When PCE aggregates are adjusted to reflect differences in population coverage between the CE 

survey and the PCE, CE/PCE ratios are marginally higher for most years.9

 

 CE aggregates are greater than PCE aggregates for comparable services, with the 

CE/PCE ratio ranging between 1.01 and 1.04 for all the years. The approximate parity between 

comparable CE and PCE services is driven largely by the category “Owner-occupied dwellings,” 

where the CE estimate is 23 to 30 percentage points higher than the PCE estimate. With the 

exception of 2007, the CE estimate is composed of two items - the annual rental equivalence 

estimate for owned homes plus 1⁄2 of the annual rental equivalence estimate for owned vacation 

homes. In April 2007, the CE Interview Survey instrument was changed such that the rental 

equivalence of owned vacation homes could be disaggregated into three items: rental 

equivalence of owned vacation homes available for rent, rental equivalence of owned vacation 

homes not available for rent, and rental equivalence of timeshares. (Sample units interviewed in 

January-March 2007 used the old instrument and thus reported rental equivalence for owned 

vacation homes in total.) The vacation home portion of the owner-occupied dwelling estimate 

for 2007 was thus recalculated as the full annual rental equivalence estimate of owned vacation 

homes not available for rent, 1⁄2 of the annual rental equivalence of owned vacation homes 

available for rent, and the monthly rental equivalence for timeshares. This procedure was 

followed to approximate PCE methods for valuing the services from vacation homes and time 

shares. Included in the PCE are the rental values for owned vacation homes including time; only 

1⁄2 the imputed value of those are primarily rented are included in the estimates. For vacation 

 

9

 To adjust the PCE estimates so that they refer to the same population as the CE survey does (that is, encompassing 

the non-institutional population, those not living on a military base, and those not living overseas), the PCE 

aggregates would need to be multiplied by the following values (approximations): 0.967 for 1997, 0.973 for 2002, 

0.991 for 2003, 0.99 for 2004 and 2005, 0.993 for 2006, and 0.995 for 2007. The multiplier is derived by finding the 

proportion of the total U.S. population covered by the CE survey to the total population covered by the PCE. (See 

Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009, 128th edition (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). 

July 9, 2009 18
homes that are not rented, the full imputed value of the service from the vacation home property 

is included (see Garner et al., 2006). Difference in the handling of vacation properties is due to 

the fact that PCE data are property-based while the CE data are consumer unit-based. With the 

change in the CE collection of vacation home data, the CE/PCE ratio increased by 5 points from 

2006 to 2007. 

Now we turn to comparable durables. CE expenditures accounted for 88 percent of PCE 

aggregates in 1992 but dropped to 69 percent by 2007. There was an unexpected drop in 2004 

driven by a sizable decline in reports of new car purchases. The effect of this drop resulted in a 

decline in the overall durables CE/PCE ratio by 10 percentage points. After the ratio rebounded 

to 75 percent in 2005, it resumed its decline in the following two years. 

In 1992, CE expenditures for nondurable comparables accounted for 69 percent of PCE 

expenditures for comparables. The CE/PCE ratio declined to 67 percent in 1997 and 63 percent 

by 2002. Since 2002, the CE/PCE ratio has ranged from 61 to 64 percent, with the lowest ratio in 

2007. 

 Table 2 presents a detailed comparison of CE and PCE estimates for 2007, the most 

recent year for which CE data are available. Expenditures again are arranged by durables, nondurables, and services. Unlike in Table 1, all PCE and CE expenditure items are considered 

regardless of comparability. Those that are comparable for the two data series are noted in Table 

2 and can be found in Table 1 as well. 

The item category of durable goods consists of motor vehicles and parts, furniture and 

household equipment, and other durable goods. Among the comparable durable-goods 

categories, the only category for which CE estimates are higher than PCE estimates is kitchen 

and other household appliances; the CE/PCE ratio is 1.12 in 2007. CE aggregate expenditures for 

July 9, 2009 19
motor vehicles and parts are similar for the CE and PCE with the ratio equal to 0.97. For the 

comparable category of new automobiles, the CE-to-PCE ratio is 0.96 while the net purchase or 

used automobiles is 1.70. As reported in the earlier article, none of the corresponding subgroups 

in “other durable goods” are considered comparable. 

Nondurable goods are grouped into four major categories: food; clothing and shoes; 

gasoline, fuel oil, and other energy goods; and other nondurable goods. Food, clothing and the 

energy groups are the most conceptually similar for the CE survey and the PCE. The ratio for the 

fuel oil, and other energy goods, 0.83, is quite high, holding constant since 2002. The ratio for 

food home consumption (off-premise consumption) is 0.58, and for purchased meals and 

beverages, 0.68. Unlike the PCE, the CE does not include expenditures that reflect the value of 

Federal Women’s, Infants’, and Children’s (WIC) program benefits. Thus, the CE/PCE ratio is 

lower than it would be if these were included in the CE. 

In contrast to the CE to PCE comparison, when CE food expenditures (not including 

alcoholic beverages) are compared to food expenditures from the USDA Economic Research 

Service (ERS) series for the years 2002 through 2007, the ratio of CE to ERS aggregate 

expenditures averages about 0.79.10 This is more than 10 percentage points higher than the 

CE/PCE ratio for 2007. The ERS aggregates do not include food purchases with food stamps and 

WIC (Women, Infants, and Children program) vouchers; the CE data include food at home and 

 

10 ERS aggregates are from the ERS Briefing Rooms, “Food CPI and Expenditures: Measuring the ERS Food 

Expenditure Series,” Table 5. Food expenditures by source of funds, available on the internet at 

www.ers.usda.gov/briefing, 2009. The primary data source for the ERS series is the Economic Census conducted by 

the U.S. Census Bureau; the Census is conducted once every 5 years. Between census years, data require projection 

techniques developed by ERS to obtain annual estimates. The ERS notes that the food expenditures that they post 

differ from those in the PCE series although the trends are similar. The ERS series shows lower levels of spending 

for food than does the PCE, particularly for food purchases at grocery stores and other retail outlets for consumption 

at home. The ERS estimates of at-home expenditures are lower partly because they exclude pet food, ice, and 

prepared feeds, which are included in the PCE estimates. ERS estimates also deduct more from grocery store sales 

for nonfoods, such as drugs and branded supplies, in estimating food purchases for at-home consumption (ERS, 

2009). 

July 9, 2009 20
food away from home from the Diary Survey and food on trips, board, catered affairs, and school 

lunches from the Interview Survey. All CE estimates have been adjusted for food stamps but not 

WIC. Data are not available in the CE for WIC. 

The category of “other nondurable goods” comprises a mix of disparate item groups, such 

as: tobacco products; toilet articles and preparations; and flowers, seeds, and potted plants. The 

CE/PCE ratio for the category is only 0.34, reflecting in some measure the non-comparability of 

many of the subgroups. Tobacco products make up one of the two comparable subgroups, yet the 

CE/PCE ratio, 0.41, is fairly low. Purchases of tobacco products are considered “sensitive” 

because they likely carry a negative connotation among many consumers. Thus, respondents of 

the CE survey are assumed to be more likely to either omit or underreport tobacco expenditures 

compared with other types of spending. 

The major expenditure categories in services are housing and household operations, 

transportation, medical care, recreation, personal care, personal business, education and research, 

religious and welfare activities, and a PCE adjustment for net foreign travel. This analysis shows 

that no major category is considered completely comparable for the two surveys. The “housing 

and household operations” category is composed of the following subgroups: owner-occupied 

dwellings; rent and utilities, excluding telephone; other lodging; telephone and telegraph; 

domestic service; and other household operations. The ratio of CE/PCE ration for rent including 

utilities is 0.98 for 2007. With rental equivalence used as a proxy for the space rent of owneroccupied dwellings, the CE/PCE ratio is 1.30. 

Expenditures for medical care include expenditures for services provided by healthcare 

professionals and healthcare facilities, and for health insurance premiums. The CE/PCE ratios 

are extremely low, with the exception of medical care and hospitalization health insurance, 

July 9, 2009 21
which has a ratio of 1.46. One reason for the low ratios is that the operating expenses of 

nonprofits serving households are included in the PCE estimate, but not in the CE aggregates. 

The low ratios also reflect the fact that the CE survey counts only out-of-pocket outlays net of 

payments by third parties payers. Medical care expenditures for the PCE represent the full costs 

of care. 

Personal business comprises a broad set of services, the largest three of which, in dollar 

terms, are not comparable due to conceptual or operational differences between the CE survey 

and the PCE. Over a third of the PCE estimate for personal business is accounted for by 

“services furnished without payment by financial intermediaries except life insurance carriers.” 

By definition, the PCE expenditure estimate is an imputation that represents checking, 

bookkeeping, and investment services received by consumers for which they do not pay through 

explicit service charges. These services are not included in CE survey expenditures; only actual 

service charges paid by consumers are included. 

The category of education and research includes higher education, nursery, elementary 

and secondary schools, and other. For the most part, the category of education and research is 

similar to medical care in the PCE in that much of the education portion of the expenditure 

estimate comes from nonprofit institutions serving households. The CE survey includes out-ofpocket expenses for tuition and other educational expenses (excluding room and board) in its 

estimate for education. Also, there is nothing collected in the CE instruments comparable to the 

foundations and nonprofit research portion of the PCE estimate. These differences render the 

category non-comparable between the CE and the PCE. 

The high CE/PCE ratio of 2.40 for the nursery schools item (in the nursery, elementary, 

and secondary schools subgroup) stands out; the ratio for the total group is 1.02. As opposed to 

July 9, 2009 22
expenses for other schools, consumers are more likely to pay the full costs of nursery schools. In 

the CE survey, education expenditures for nursery schools are combined into item code with 

similar expenditures for preschools and child daycare centers. The PCE, in contrast, derives its 

estimate by allocating one-third of the expenses for child daycare services reported by private 

providers to nursery schools. The remaining two-thirds are assigned to the childcare component 

of the social welfare subgroup in the “religious and welfare activities” category (see Garner et 

al., 2006). 

G. Future Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Comparisons 

The BEA is planning to introduce a new classification system for PCE in July 2009 

(McCully and Payson, 2009). Changes in definitions and statistical changes are being introduced 

and are expected to affect future CE/PCE comparisons. Among the statistical improvements is 

the use of new retail point-of-sale scanner data from a trade source for consumer electronics PCE 

estimates. Another change is that the BEA will use annual data from the CE in the estimation of 

the imputed space rental value of owner-occupied permanent-site non-farm housing. 

IV. Conclusions 

Although the BLS program that produces the CE is noted for the quality of its customer 

outreach, planning tools and its willingness to critically assess its products, studies conducted 

inside and outside of the BLS indicate that underreporting remains a problem for some categories 

of expenditures. Updated comparisons with the PCE indicate that expenditures as measured in 

the CE are still less than similar expenditures in the PCE. The CE program is actively working to 

address underreporting problems. For example, the underreporting problem with income 

essentially was solved through the use of imputation. Other research on methods to reduce 

underreporting and non-response is discussed in Goldenberg and Ryan (2009). 

July 9, 2009 23
V. References 

Amble, Nathan and Kenneth J. Stewart (1994), “Experimental Price Index for Elderly 

Consumers,” Monthly Labor Review, May, pp. 11-16. 

Atkinson, A. B., J. Gomulka and Nicholas Stern (1990), “Spending on Alcohol: Evidence from 

the Family Expenditure Survey 1970-1983,” Economic Journal, Vol.100, Issue 402, pp. 808-827. 

Attanasio, Orazio P., Erich Battistin and Andrew Leicester (2006), “From Micro to Macro, from 

Poor to Rich: Consumption and Income in the UK and the US,” paper presented at National 

Poverty Center conference “Consumption, Income, and the Well-Being of Families and 

Children,” Washington, D.C., April 20, 2006. 

Attanasio, Orazio P., Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg and Ekaterini Kyriazidou (2007), “Credit 

Constraints in the Market for Consumer Durables: Evidence from Micro Data on Car Loans” 

International Economic Review, Vol. 49, Issue 2. pp. 401-436. 

Attanasio, Orazio P. and Guglielmo Weber (1995), “Is Consumption Growth Consistent with 

Intertemporal Optimization? Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey,” The Journal of 

Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 6 (Dec.), pp. 1121-1157. 

Battistin, Erich (2002), “Errors in Survey Reports of Consumption Expenditures,” Institute for 

Fiscal Studies, London, England. 

Battistin, Erich, Raffaele Miniaci and Guglielmo Weber (2003), “What do we Learn from Recall 

Consumption Data?,” Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 466, Bank of Italy, 

Economic Research Department, Rome, Italy. 

Battistin, Erich and Mario Padula (2009), “Survey Instruments and the Reports of Consumption 

Expenditures: Evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” paper presented at The 

Econometric Society conference,“ 2009 North American Summer Meeting,” Boston, 

Massachusetts, June 4-7, 2009. 

Blisard, Noel and Hayden Stewart (2007), “Food Spending in American Households, 2003-04,” 

Economic Information Bulletin Number 23, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., March. 

Bosworth, Barry, Gary Burtless, and John Sabelhaus (1991), “The Decline in Saving: Evidence 

from Household Surveys,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1991, Issue 1, pp. 183-

241. 

Branch, Raphael (1987), “Comparing Medical Care Expenditures of Two Diverse U.S. Data 

Sources,” Monthly Labor Review, March, pp.15-18. 

Branch, Raphael (1994), “The Consumer Expenditure Survey: A Comparative Analysis,” 

Monthly Labor Review, December, pp. 46-55. 

July 9, 2009 24
Bureau of the Census, Economics and Statistics Administration (1994), 1990 Census of Housing 

Residential Finance, 1990 CH-4-1, U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

Bureau of the Census (2001), Residential Finance Survey website, July 31. 

Bureau of the Census (2003), Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003 (123rd Edition). 

Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 8. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (1990), Personal Consumption Expenditures, Methodology Paper 

Series MP-6: U.S. National Income and Product Accounts, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., June. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (1994). "Reconciliation of PCE and Consumer Expenditure 

Survey Estimates of Consumer Spending", Preliminary Draft, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

September 7, 1994. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (2002), “NIWD PCE Bridge to 1992 Input-Output Table,” 

unpublished data, sent by Greg Key to William D. Passero of BLS on March 19. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (2003), “1997 Benchmark I-O Accounts,” CD, data for BLS 

internal use only, February 5. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (1997a), BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2490, U.S. Department 

of Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (1995), Consumer Expenditure Survey 1992-93, Bulletin 2462, U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., September. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, (1997b), Consumer Expenditure Survey 1994-95, Bulletin 2492, U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., December. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999), Consumer Expenditure Survey 1996-97, Report 935, U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., September. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001a), Consumer Expenditure Survey 1998-99, Report 955, U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., November. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003), Consumer Expenditure Survey 2001-02, Report 969, U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., September. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008), “Consumer Expenditure Survey Compared with Personal 

Consumption Expenditures,” Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2004-2005, Report 1008, October 

2008, pp. 6-11. 

July 9, 2009 25
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), “Consumer Expenditure Survey Comparisons with National 

Health Expenditures and the Current Population Survey,” BLS 2004-2005 Biennial Report, pp. 

12-14, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000a), Consumer Price Index, Table 1 (1999-2000 Weights). 

Relative Importance of Components in the Consumer Price Indexes: U.S. City Average, 

December 2002. BLS web site, August. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000b), Issues in Measuring Price Change and Consumption 

Conference, Washington, D.C., June 5-8. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (1991), Quarterly Interview Survey 1991 Forms, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey, CE-300(P91), 4-1-91. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001b), Quarterly Interview Survey 2001 Forms, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey, CE-300/302, 4-1-2001. 

Busch, Susan H., Tracy A. Fabla, Mireia Jofre-Bonet and Jody L. Sindelar (2004), “Tobacco 

Spending and its Crowd-Out of Other Goods” National Bureau of Economic Research Working 

Paper No. 10974, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Butrica, Barbara A., Joshua H. Goldwyn, Richard W. Johnson (2005), “Understanding 

Expenditure Patterns in Retirement,” The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Carson, Carol S. (1987), “GNP: An Overview of Source Data and Estimating Methods,” Survey 

of Current Business, Vol. 67, pp. 103-127. 

Charles, Kerwin Kofi, Sheldon Danziger, Geng Li and Robert F. Schoeni (2007), “Studying 

Consumption with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Comparisons with the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey and an Application to the Intergenerational Transmission of Well-Being” 

FEDS Working Paper No. 2007-16, Federal Reserve, Washington, D.C. 

Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (2000), Statistical Policy Seminar: 

“Integrating Federal Statistical Information Processes,” Washington, D.C., November. 

Dahlhamer, James, John Dixon, Pat Doyle, Judy Eargle, Deborah Griffin and Pamela McGovern 

(2003), “Quality at the Item Level: Terms, Methods, and Guidelines for Cross-Survey 

Comparisons,” unpublished manuscript, available from the BLS, Washington, DC. 

Danziger, Sheldon H., Lloyd Grieger, and Robert F. Schoeni (2008), “Estimating and 

Benchmarking the Trend in the Poverty Rate from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics,” PSC 

Research Report No. 08-633, Population Studies Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

July 9, 2009 26
Duly, Abby, Thesia Garner, Eric Keil, Sally Reyes-Morales and Cassandra Wirth (2003), “The 

Consumer Expenditure Survey and AC Nielsen Survey: A Data Comparison Study,” unpublished 

internal document, available from the BLS, Washington, DC. 

Economic Research Service (2009), “Briefing Room, Food CPI and Expenditures: Three Types 

of Food Expenditures Series,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/threetypesoffoodexpendituresseries.html 

Fernandez-Villaverde, Jesus and Dirk Krueger (2004), “Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts 

from Consumer Expenditure Survey Data,” unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania 

and University of Frankfurt. 

Fisher, Jonathan and David S. Johnson (2004), “Consumption Mobility in the United States: 

Evidence from Two Panel Data Sets,” unpublished manuscript, BLS, Washington, D.C. 

Fixler, Dennis and Ted Jaditz (2002), “An Examination of the Difference Between the CPI and 

the PCE Deflator,” Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 361, BLS, Washington, D.C. 

Foster, Ann (2009), “Health Care Expenditures: A Comparison,” Monthly Labor Review, 

forthcoming. 

Foster, Susan E., Roger D. Vaughan, William H. Foster and Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (2003), 

“Alcohol Consumption and Expenditures for Underage Drinking and Adult Excessive Drinking,” 

The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(8), pp. 989-995. 

Garner, Thesia I., George Janini, William Passero, Laura Paszkiewicz, and Mark Vendemia 

(2006), “The CE and the PCE: a comparison,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 129, No. 9, 

September, pp. 20-46 (available at: http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/09/art3full.pdf). 

Garner, Thesia I. and Bill Passero (2001), “Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Private Health 

Insurance: An Analysis of Consumer Expenditure Survey and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 

Data,” mimeo, available from the BLS, Washington, D.C., June 1. 

Garner, Thesia I. and Kathleen Short (2001), “Owner-Occupied Shelter in Experimental Poverty 

Measurement with a ‘Look’ at Inequality and Poverty Rates,” paper presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the Southern Economics Association, Tampa, Florida, November. 

Garner, Thesia I. and Kenneth J. Stewart (2002), “Consumer Price Index and COLAs” in David 

J. Ekerdt, ed., Encyclopedia of Aging, Macmillan Reference USA, an Imprint of the Gale Group, 

New York. 

General Accounting Office (1996), “Alternative Poverty Measures,” GAO/GGD-96-183R, 

Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. 

July 9, 2009 27
Ghosh, Dhiren and Andrew Vogt (2004), “Feasibility of Splitting the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey Questionnaire and Administering each Part to a Subsample,” unpublished manuscript, 

available from the BLS, Washington, DC. 

Gieseman, Raymond (1987), “The Consumer Expenditure Survey: Quality Control by 

Comparative Analysis,” Monthly Labor Review, March, pp.8-14. 

Goldenberg, Karen and Jay Ryan (2009), “Evolution and Change in the Consumer Expenditure 

Surveys: Adapting Methodologies to Meet Changing Needs,” National Bureau of Economic 

Research, Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Summer Institute 2009, July 13-14, 

Cambridge MA. 

Houthakker, Henrik S., and Lester D. Taylor (1970), Consumer Demand in the United States: 

Analyses and Projections, 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Hurd, Michael and Susann Rohwedder (2006), “Consumption and Economic Well-Being at 

Older Ages: Income- and Consumption- Based Poverty Measures in the HRS,” University of 

Michigan Retirement Research Center Working Paper 2006-110, University of Michigan 

Retirement Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Hurd, Michael and Susann Rohwedder (2008b), “Methodological Innovations in Collecting 

Spending Data: The HRS Consumption and Activities Mail Survey,” RAND Working Paper 

WR646, RAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia. 

Hurd, Michael and Susann Rohwedder (2008a), “The Retirement-Consumption Puzzle: Actual 

Spending Change in Panel Data,” RAND Working Paper WR563, RAND Corporation, 

Arlington, Virginia. 

Johnson, David S. and John Greenlees (2003), presentation before FESAC on a “Comparison of 

Movements in the CPI and PCE Price Indexes,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Labor, March 21. 

Johnson, David S., Jonathan A. Parker and Nicholas S. Souleles (2006), “Household Expenditure 

and the Income Tax Rebates of 2001.” American Economic Review, 96(5), pp.1589-1610. 

Johnson, David S., Timothy Smeeding, and Barbara Boyle Torrey (2005), “Economic Inequality 

through the Prisms of Income and Consumption,” Monthly Labor Review, April, pp. 11-24. 

Kearney, Melissa Schettini (2005), “State Lotteries and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Public 

Economics, Vol. 89, December, pp. 2269-2299. 

Keil, Eric (2003), unpublished aggregate expenditures based on AC Nielsen household scanner 

data for alcoholic beverages and tobacco and tobacco accessories, BLS, Washington, D.C., 

March 11. 

July 9, 2009 28
Kerr, William C. and Thomas K. Greenfield (2007), “Distribution of Alcohol Consumption and 

Expenditures and the Impact of Improved Measurement on Coverage of Alcohol Sales in the 

2000 National Alcohol Survey,” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, Vol. 31, 

Issue. 10, pp. 1714-1722. 

Kunze, Kurt and Stephanie H. McCulla (2008), “Preview of Revised NIPA Estimates for 2002: 

Effects of Incorporating the 2002 Benchmark I-O Accounts Proposed Definition and Statistical 

Changes,” Survey of Current Business, March pp. 10-17. 

Landefeld, J. Steven S. (2000), comments during the BLS “Issues in Measuring Price Change 

and Consumption Conference,” Washington, D.C., June 5-8. 

Lebow, David (2000), email communication with John Greenlees, BLS, concerning CPI weights 

based on the CE, February 8. 

Lebow, David E. and Jeremy B. Rudd (2003), “Measurement Error in the Consumer Price Index: 

Where Do We Stand?” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 41, Issue 1, March, pp.159-201. 

Malloy, Christopher, Tobias Moskowitz, and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen (2008), “Long-Run 

Stockholder Consumption Risk and Asset Returns,” Journal of Finance. 

McCully, Clint (2000) of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Presentation on PCE to the CE 

Staff,” Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C., April 19. 

McCully, Clinton P., Brian C. Moore, and Kenneth J. Stewart (2007), “A Reconciliation between 

the Consumer Price Index and the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index,” Bureau of 

Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 

McCully, Clinton P. and Steven Payson (2009), “Preview of the 2009 Comprehensive Revision 

of the NIPAs: Statistical Changes,” Survey of Current Business, May, pp.6-16. 

McCully, Clinton P. and Teresita D. Teensma (2008), “Preview of the 2009 Comprehensive 

Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts: New Classifications for Personal 

Consumption Expenditures,” Survey of Current Business, May, pp. 6-17. 

Mead, Charles Ian (2002), “Separate Recognition of Income and Outlays of Nonprofit 

Institutions Serving Households,” mimeo available form the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

Mead, Charles Ian, Clinton P. McCully, and Marshall B. Reinsdorf (2003), "Income and Outlays 

of Households and of Nonprofit Institutions Serving Households", Survey of Current Business, 

April, pp.13-17. 

Meyer, Bruce D., Wallace K.C. Mok and James X. Sullivan (2009), “The Under-Reporting of 

Transfers in Household Surveys: Its Nature and Consequences,” The Harris School of Public 

Policy Studies Working Paper No. 09.03, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 

July 9, 2009 29
Meyer, Bruce D., James X. Sullivan (2008), “Changes in the Consumption, income, and WellBeing of Single Mother Headed Families,” American Economic Review

Meyer, Bruce D., James X. Sullivan (2009), “Five Years of Consumption and Income Poverty” 

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 14827, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Meyer, Bruce D. and James X. Sullivan (2003), “Measuring The Well-Being Of The Poor Using 

Income And Consumption,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 38 (Supplement), pp. 1180-

1220. 

National Bureau of Economic Research (2002), Conference on Research in Income and Wealth 

(CRIW) Consumer Expenditure Survey Research summer workshop, presentations by Thesia I. 

Garner, David S. Johnson, William D. Passero, and Mary McCarthy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

July 22-23. 

National Research Council (2002), At What Price? Conceptualizing and Measuring Cost-ofLiving and Price Indexes, Panel on Conceptual, Measurement, and Other Statistical Issues in 

Developing Cost-of-Living Indexes, Charles, L. Schultze and Christopher Mackie , editors, 

Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. 

Parker, Jonathan A. and Christian Julliard (2005), “Consumption Risk and Cross-Sectional 

Returns,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 113, No. 1 (February), pp. 185-222. 

Parker, Jonathan A. and Bruce Preston (2005), "Precautionary Saving and Consumption 

Fluctuations," American Economic Review, 95(4), September, pp. 1119-1143. 

Parker, Jonathan A. and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen (2009), “Who Bears Aggregate Fluctuations 

and How?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 14665, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 

Parker, Robert (2000), comments presented during the Panel Discussion on “The role of 

household expenditure surveys in measuring consumption,” during the BLS “Issues in 

Measuring Price Change and Consumption Conference,” June 5-8. 

Passero, William (2001, "Comparison of Estimates from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey 

and the National Accounts Personal Consumption Expenditures: Footwear," unpublished paper, 

November 19. 

Pollard, Thomas (2000), “CE to PCE Comparison Methodology,” mimeo available from the 

BLS, Washington, D.C., July 10. 

Princeton University (1998), Current and Future Developments in the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey Conference, Princeton, New Jersey, May 19-20, 1998. 

July 9, 2009 30
Safir, Adam and Karen Goldenberg (2008), "Mode Effects in a Survey of Consumer 

Expenditures. Alexandria, VA: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on 

Survey Research Methods, pp. 4436-4343. http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/

Savage, Howard (2003), telephone communication regarding 1991 Residential Finance Survey 

sample, Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C. 

Schultze, Charles L. and Christopher Mackie, eds., At What Price? Conceptualizing and 

Measuring Cost-of-Living and Price Indexes, Panel on Conceptual, Measurement, and Other 

Statistical Issues in Developing Cost-of-Living Indexes (Washington, DC, National Academy 

Press, 2002). 

Shields, Jennifer and Nhien To (2005), “Learning to Say No: Conditioned Underreporting in an 

Expenditure Survey,” Proceedings of the Section on Survey Methods Research, American 

Statistical Association. 

Slesnick, Daniel T. (1992), “Aggregate Consumption and Saving in the Postwar United States,” 

The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 74, Issue 4 (Nov.), pp. 585-597. 

Slesnick, Daniel T. (1998), “Are Our Data Relevant to the Theory? The Case of Aggregate 

Consumption,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, January, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 52-61. 

Slesnick, Daniel T. (2000), Consumption and Social Welfare: Living Standards and their 

Distribution in the United States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Smith, George, email communication regarding Personal Consumption Expenditure estimates of 

owners’ imputed rent for the National Accounts, July 31-August 14, 2001. 

Smith, George, oral communication regarding Personal Consumption Expenditure estimates of 

owner-occupied non-farm dwellings and the rental value of farm dwellings, February 10, 2003. 

Stewart, Hayden, Noel Blisard, Sanjib Bhuyan and Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. (2004), “The Demand 

for Food Away From Home Full-Service or Fast Food?” Agricultural Economic Report Number 

829, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C., January. 

Stewart, Ricky, Jessica Brede Stone and Mary L. Streitwieser (2007), “U.S. Benchmark InputOutput Accounts, 2002,” Survey of Current Business, October, pp. 19-48. 

Triplett, Jack E. (1997), “Measuring Consumption: The Post-1973 Slowdown and the Research 

Issues,” Federal Research Bank of St. Louis Review, May/June, 79(3), pp. 9-42. 

Tucker, Clyde, Paul Biemer and Brian Meekins (2005), “Estimating the Level of Underreporting 

of Expenditures among Expenditure Reporters: A Micro-Level Latent Class Analysis.” BLS 

Statistical Survey Papers, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 

July 9, 2009 31
July 9, 2009 32

U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (1993), American Housing Survey for the United States in 1991, Current Housing 

Reports, H150/91, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Wilcox, David W. (1992), “The Construction of U.S. Consumption Data: Some Facts and Their 

Implications for Empirical Work,” American Economic Review, Vol. 82, Issue 4 (September), 

pp. 922-941. 

Wilcox, Ernie (2000) of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, email communication November 2 

with Thesia I. Garner, BLS, Washington, D.C. 

Winter, K. Joachim (2002), “Design Effects in Survey-Based Measures of Household 

Consumption,” Paper No. 02-34, Manneheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging, 

Mannheim, Germany. 
Table 1a. Summary comparison of aggregate Consumer Expenditures and Personal Consumption Expenditures based for 1992, 1997,and 2002-2007

 and restricted to the most comparable categories on the basis of concepts involved and comprehensiveness[In millions of dollars]

PCE CE

CE-toPCE 

ratio PCE CE

CE-toPCE 

ratio PCE CE

CE-toPCE 

ratio PCE 

Total durables, nondurables, and services

Total $4,235,263 $2,856,482 0.67 $5,544,512 $3,589,914 0.65 $7,350,722 $4,457,246 0.61 $7,703,63

Comparable items 2,421,707 2,085,336 .86 3,027,956 2,563,644 .85 3,809,915 3,125,581 .82 3,984,4

Ratio of comparable items to total .57 .73 .55 .71 .52 .70 .5

Comparable items (adjusted for population) 2,357,166 2,085,336 .88 2,928,412 2,563,644 .88 3,705,224 3,125,581 .84 3,949,53

Durable goods

Total durable goods 483,588 430,076 .89 689,767 561,031 .81 923,940 693,653 .75 942,66

Comparable durable goods 201,265 176,476 .88 257,516 205,466 .80 322,614 242,895 .75 323,24Ratio of comparable durables to total durables .42 .41 .37 .37 .35 .35 .3

 New autos 78,016 88,202 1.13 82,326 84,636 1.03 101,703 111,924 1.10 97,17 Furniture, including mattresses and bedsprings 38,957 31,922 .82 56,467 42,012 .74 68,913 46,171 .67 70,18 Kitchen and other household appliances 24,287 23,204 .96 26,383 28,391 1.08 31,988 33,666 1.05 32,78 Video and audio goods, including musical instruments, and computer goods

60,005 33,148 .55 92,340 50,427 .55 120,010 51,134 .43 123,09

Nondurable goods

Total nondurable goods 1,330,504 866,976 .65 1,618,967 1,026,129 .63 2,079,632 1,212,863 .58 2,190,20

Comparable nondurable goods 1,167,003 808,815 .69 1,382,788 925,321 .67 1,722,427 1,083,624 .63 1,809,20Ratio of comparable nondurables to total nondurables .88 .93 .85 .90 .83 .89 .8

 Food purchased for off-premise consumption 415,693 299,635 .72 492,521 337,499 .69 612,237 389,640 .64 636,02 Alcoholic beverages purchased for off-premise consumption 48,853 16,388 .34 61,162 18,972 .31 75,283 25,497 .34 78,49 Purchased meals and beverages 245,954 179,103 .73 294,942 218,288 .74 379,461 267,770 .71 399,01 Alcoholic beverages in purchased meals 33,694 13,801 .41 32,170 13,604 .42 40,728 16,487 .40 42,79 Shoes 32,903 23,124 .70 40,732 33,126 .81 49,526 34,960 .71 50,33 Women's and children's (girls' and infants') clothing and accessories, except shoes

115,711 75,828 .66 127,456 79,788 .63 149,993 87,889 .59 153,68

 Men's and boys' clothing and accessories, except shoes 63,645 45,018 .71 80,594 42,883 .53 92,874 45,769 .49 95,25 Gasoline, fuel oil, and other energy goods 124,639 107,384 .86 147,739 127,847 .87 178,768 148,800 .83 209,60 Tobacco products 48,008 27,266 .57 53,848 27,565 .51 89,156 35,668 .40 88,03 Toilet articles and preparations 37,903 21,268 .56 51,624 25,749 .50 54,401 31,144 .57 55,97

Services

Total services 2,421,171 1,559,430 .64 3,235,778 2,002,754 .62 4,347,150 2,550,730 .59 4,570,76

Comparable services 1,053,439 1,100,045 1.04 1,387,652 1,432,857 1.03 1,764,874 1,799,062 1.02 1,852,01Ratio of comparable services to total services .44 .71 .43 .72 .41 .71 .4

 Owner-occupied dwellings 462,286 567,986 1.23 597,957 751,763 1.26 809,035 1,014,126 1.25 858,55 Rent and utilities, excluding telephone 302,733 300,749 .99 374,363 366,184 .98 455,358 424,634 .93 470,39

 Other lodging 32,615 22,657 .69 45,699 30,842 .67 54,627 37,333 .68 57,96

 Domestic service 11,356 7,937 .70 14,688 7,954 .54 16,732 8,958 .54 18,47

 Transportation 157,664 158,353 1.00 245,666 225,711 .92 288,430 252,818 .88 297,30 Admissions to all events 16,614 12,658 .76 24,984 18,595 .74 34,777 21,888 .63 36,03 Radio and television repair 2,977 1,092 .37 3,900 775 .20 4,089 360 .09 4,10 Cleaning, storage, and repair of clothing and shoes 11,365 12,722 1.12 13,646 7,966 .58 15,797 13,501 .85 15,16 Legal services 44,860 9,180 .20 53,748 14,336 .27 71,249 14,910 .21 78,12

 Funeral and burial expenses 10,969 6,711 .61 13,001 8,731 .67 14,780 10,534 .71 15,88

PCE category

1992 1997 2002 

July 9, 2009 
Table 1b. Summary comparison of aggregate Consumer Expenditures and Personal Consumption Expenditures based for 1992, 1997,and 2002-2007

 and restricted to the most comparable categories on the basis of concepts involved and comprehensiveness[In millions of dollars]

PCE CE

CE-toPCE 

ratio PCE CE

CE-toPCE 

ratio PCE CE

CE-toPCE 

ratio PCE 

Total durables, nondurables, and services

Total $8,195,862 $4,933,389 0.60 $8,694,113 $5,267,364 0.61 $9,207,207 $5,538,182 0.60 $9,710,168 Comparable items 4,227,737 3,454,955 .82 4,520,356 3,698,803 .82 4,817,706 3,951,561 .82 5,066,446 

Ratio of comparable items to total .52 .70 .52 .70 .52 .71 .52 

Comparable items (adjusted for population) 4,185,922 3,458,802 .83 4,475,523 3,698,803 .83 4,784,700 3,951,561 .83 5,039,314 

Durable goods

Total durable goods 983,851 725,420 .74 1,020,760 779,874 .76 1,052,050 752,256 .72 1,082,798 

Comparable durable goods 340,926 233,684 .69 361,719 270,156 .75 382,442 280,780 .73 387,043 Ratio of comparable durables to total durables .35 .32 .35 .35 .36 .37 .36 

 New autos 97,652 91,625 .94 103,121 109,714 1.06 106,478 115,930 1.09 102,046  Furniture, including mattresses and bedsprings 75,260 49,807 .66 79,402 56,021 .71 83,254 56,129 .67 84,964  Kitchen and other household appliances 34,745 38,946 1.12 36,810 40,853 1.11 38,613 43,796 1.13 39,214  Video and audio goods, including musical instruments, and computer goods

133,269 53,306 .40 142,386 63,568 .45 154,097 64,925 .42 160,819 

Nondurable goods

Total nondurable goods 2,343,696 1,378,620 .59 2,514,120 1,462,228 .58 2,685,238 1,548,629 .58 2,833,002 Comparable nondurable goods 1,940,973 1,247,588 .64 2,092,024 1,326,789 .63 2,234,709 1,413,064 .63 2,367,688 Ratio of comparable nondurables to total nondurables .83 .90 .83 .91 .83 .91 .84 

 Food purchased for off-premise consumption 677,206 444,202 .66 719,660 438,800 .61 762,742 464,119 .61 809,826 

 Alcoholic beverages purchased for off-premise consumption 86,080 32,306 .38 93,556 25,901 .28 103,277 31,292 .30 110,957  Purchased meals and beverages 424,498 299,575 .71 449,225 328,110 .73 480,287 343,523 .72 504,030 

 Alcoholic beverages in purchased meals 44,735 20,986 .47 46,882 24,080 .51 50,695 27,689 .55 54,413 

 Shoes 51,938 38,138 .73 54,882 37,536 .68 58,089 36,058 .62 59,150  Women's and children's (girls' and infants') clothing and accessories, except shoes

161,365 94,829 .59 169,507 98,009 .58 179,098 100,484 .56 186,809 

 Men's and boys' clothing and accessories, except shoes 99,671 47,147 .47 104,570 51,561 .49 109,614 52,640 .48 113,858  Gasoline, fuel oil, and other energy goods 249,691 200,124 .80 304,594 253,297 .83 336,223 281,553 .84 366,891 

 Tobacco products 87,514 33,270 .38 88,268 37,163 .42 89,824 38,589 .43 93,374 

 Toilet articles and preparations 58,275 37,011 .64 60,880 32,332 .53 64,860 37,117 .57 68,380 

Services

Total services 4,868,315 2,829,349 .58 5,159,233 3,025,261 .59 5,469,919 3,237,296 .59 5,794,368 Comparable services 1,945,838 1,973,683 1.01 2,066,613 2,101,858 1.02 2,200,555 2,257,717 1.03 2,311,715 Ratio of comparable services to total services .40 .70 .40 .69 .40 .70 .40 

 Owner-occupied dwellings 910,977 1,135,957 1.25 965,100 1,215,065 1.26 1,034,818 1,294,288 1.25 1,078,519 

 Rent and utilities, excluding telephone 487,840 466,251 .96 525,197 507,666 .97 555,635 559,067 1.01 590,779 

 Other lodging 63,984 39,027 .61 70,778 41,720 .59 76,702 45,474 .59 83,262 

 Domestic service 19,544 10,332 .53 19,945 10,813 .54 21,199 13,584 .64 22,448  Transportation 308,199 262,908 .85 324,300 263,838 .81 341,241 277,584 .81 357,008 

 Admissions to all events 37,643 22,389 .59 38,371 25,566 .67 41,193 25,639 .62 43,646 

 Radio and television repair 4,585 459 .10 4,563 446 .10 4,793 722 .15 4,975  Cleaning, storage, and repair of clothing and shoes 15,547 12,317 .79 16,063 12,786 .80 17,065 13,333 .78 17,203  Legal services 81,950 14,826 .18 86,122 14,637 .17 91,913 18,893 .21 97,705  Funeral and burial expenses 15,569 9,217 .59 16,174 9,321 .58 15,996 9,133 .57 16,170 

2004 2005 2006 

PCE category

July 9, 2009 
[In millions of dollars]

PCE 

Total durables, nondurables, and services $9,710,168 Durable goods 1,082,798 

Motor vehicles and parts 440,441 

New autos1 102,046 

Net purchases of used autos 56,471 Other motor vehicles 219,087 

Trucks, new and net used 202,939 

Recreational vehicles 16,147 

Tires, tubes, accessories and other parts 62,838 

Furniture and household equipment 415,343 

Furniture, including mattresses and bedsprings1 84,964 

Kitchen and other household appliances1 39,214 China, glassware, tableware, and utensils 40,680 Video and audio goods, including musical instruments, and computer goods1 160,819 

Video and audio goods, including musical instruments1 97,483 

Computers, peripherals, and software1 63,336 

Other durable house furnishings (for example, floor coverings, clocks, lamps, and furnishings; blinds, rods, and other; writing equipment, handtools, tools, hardware, and supplies) 89,665 

227,014 

Ophthalmic products and orthopedic appliances 28,270 Wheel goods (including bicycles and motorcycles), sports (also includes guns) and photographic equipment, boats, and pleasure aircraft 86,951 Jewelry and watches 65,494 Books and maps 46,298 

R

PCE Categories

Other durable goods

Table 2. Comparison of 2007 Aggregate Consumer Expenditures with Personal Consumption Expenditures Based on 1997 PCE Benchmark (not addifferences)

July 9, 2009 
Nondurable goods 2,833,002 

Food 1,329,137 

Food purchased for off-premise consumption1 809,826 

Alcoholic beverages purchased for off-premise consumption1 110,957 Purchased meals and beverages1 504,030 Alcoholic beverages in purchased meals1 54,413 

Food supplied to employees: civilians 11,774 Food supplied to employees: military 2,909Food produced and consumed on farms 597

Clothing and shoes 374,026 

Shoes1 59,150 Women's and children's (girls' and infants') clothing and accessories, except shoes1 186,809 

Men's and boys' clothing and accessories, except shoes1 113,858 Standard clothing issued to military personnel 428Sewing good for males and females 8,056 Luggage for males and females 5,726 

Gasoline, fuel oil, and other energy goods1 366,891 Other nondurable goods 762,948 

Tobacco products1 93,374 

Toilet articles and preparations1 68,380 Semidurable house furnishings 46,836 Cleaning and polishing preparations, and miscellaneous household supplies and paper products 84,275 Drug preparations and sundries 298,653 Nondurable toys and sport supplies 74,338 Stationery and writing supplies 21,892 Net foreign remittances 6,059Magazines, newspapers, and sheet music 48,577 

Flowers, seeds, and potted plants 20,564 

Table 2 (continued). Comparison of 2007 Aggregate Consumer Expenditures with Personal Consumption Expenditures Based on 1997 PCE Benchpopulation differences)

July 9, 2009 
Services 5,794,368 

Housing and household operations 1,986,535 

Owner-occupied dwellings1 1,078,519 

Rent and utilities, excluding telephone1 590,779 

Tenant-occupied nonfarm dwellings 299,099 Electricity 153,810 Gas 64,986 

Water and other sanitary services 72,884 

Other lodging1 83,262 

Telephone and telegraph 141,662 Domestic service1 22,448 Other household operations (for example, moving and storage, household insurance, rug and furniture cleaning, electrical repair, reupholstery and furniture repair, postage, household operation services not elsewhere classified) 69,865 

Transportation1 357,008 

Repair, greasing, washing, parking storage, rental, and leasing 224,184 

Bridge, tunnel, ferry tolls 7,351 Insurance 59,409 Mass transit systems 11,875 Taxicab 4,533 Railway 715 

Bus 2,010 Airline 36,675 Other (including water passenger; passenger transportation arrangement; limousine service; other local transportation; part of Amtrak passenger, trucking, and courier services, except air) 10,256 

Medical care 1,681,060 

Physicians 387,466 Dentists 95,789 Other professional services 261,531 Hospitals 661,548 Nursing homes 121,524 

Health insurance

Medical care and hospitalization health insurance 127,299 

Income loss insurance 3,023Workers' compensation 22,882

Table 2 (continued). Comparison of 2007 Aggregate Consumer Expenditures with Personal Consumption Expenditures Based on 1997 PCE Benchpopulation differences)

July 9, 2009 
Recreation 403,412 

Admissions to all events1 43,646 

Motion picture theaters, theatre, opera, and entertainment 25,181 Spectator sports 18,465 

Radio and television repair1 4,975 

Clubs and fraternal organizations 26,268 Commercial participant amusements 119,976 

Parimutuel net receipts 6,253 Other (including pets and pet services, excluding vets; veterinarians; cable TV; film developing; photo studios; sporting and recreational camps; high school recreation; lotteries; videocassette rental; commercial amusements not elsewhere classified) 202,296 

Personal care 124,350 

Cleaning, storage, and repair of clothing and shoes1 17,203 

Barbershops, beauty parlors, and health clubs 51,986 

Other (including watch, clock, and jewelry repair; miscellaneous personal services) 55,161 

Personal business 740,962 

Brokerage charges and investment counseling 114,540Bank service charges, trust services, and safe deposit box rental 115,916 

Services furnished without payment by financial intermediaries except life insurance carriers 227,640Expense of handling life insurance and pension plans 117,670Legal services1 97,705 

Funeral and burial expenses1 16,170 Other personal business (including labor union expenses, professional association expenses, employment agency expenses, money orders, classified ads, tax return preparation services, personal business services not elsewhere classified) 51,320 

Education and research 257,269 

Higher education 142,984 Nursery, elementary, and secondary schools 49,453 

Elementary and secondary schools 36,054 Nursery schools 13,399 

Other education and research 64,832 

Commercial and vocational schools 44,593Foundations and nonprofit research 20,239

Table 2 (continued). Comparison of 2007 Aggregate Consumer Expenditures with Personal Consumption Expenditures Based on 1997 PCE Benchpopulation differences)

July 9, 2009 
Religious and welfare activities 252,716 

All contributions, including religion (CE) Political organizations 902Museums and libraries 10,535Foundations to religion and welfare 16,541Social welfare 161,094 

Childcare 39,719 

Social welfare (including membership organizations, job training and vocational rehabilitation services, residential care, individual and family services, social services not elsewhere classified, civic- social-fraternal associations) 121,375 

Religion 63,644

Net foreign travel -8,947

1 Comparable CE and PCE categories.

Table 2 (continued). Comparison of 2007 Aggregate Consumer Expenditures with Personal Consumption Expenditures Based on 1997 PCE Bench

population differences)

July 9, 2009