common pot), and more difficult to recall. The interaction coefficients for the household diaries are also negative but not significant. These coefficients are also smaller in magnitude, suggesting again that performance with respect to household size differs dramatically by recall or diary format.

Urban households with recall modules do not perform appreciably worse than their rural counterparts vis-à-vis the benchmark. No interaction term for urban location is significant for any recall module except module 5, the “usual” month recall. For this module, the difference in total and food consumption from the benchmark is attenuated in urban areas, suggesting that the cognitive demands of the usual month construct present particular challenges for rural households. This may be because urban households rely more on the market for their consumption, with potentially smoother prices and availabilities over time so that rule-of-thumb extrapolations from daily consumption to a “usual” month are more accurate. Alternatively, this may reflect the higher education of urban respondents since in the results that control for the education of the household head, the only significant interaction term with years of education is again for module 5.

Education of the household head does not affect the performance of the household diaries relative to the individual diary but urbanity does, with household diaries performing significantly closer to the benchmark in rural areas. In fact the lower mean consumption of the infrequent household diary (module 7) summarized in panel A of Table 5 is entirely due to urban households – there is no significant consumption difference among rural households that were administered module 7 or module 8. However, urban households with module 7 report 29 percent lower total consumption, 26 percent lower food consumption, 45 percent lower frequent non-food, and 31 percent lower non-frequent non-food. The frequently supervised household diary (module 6) also reports significantly lower non-food consumption (of either category) when administered to urban households. These results are consistent with the supposition that urban settings provide more diverse personal consumption choices (such as outside meals and public transport) than rural areas, and much of this consumption out of what Deaton and Grosh (2000) term “walking around money” is missed by the sole diary keepers of modules 6 and 7.<sup>23</sup> The difficulty in capturing this “walking around money” may be somewhat mitigated by the frequency of supervision since the magnitude of the interaction terms are less for the frequently supervised module 6 and indeed the interaction term for food consumption for that module is not significantly different from zero.

> 23 This supposition is supported by the differential number of line item entries in urban and rural diaries. While the mean total number of unique commodities consumed by the household over the 2-week period is roughly equal across diary formats in rural areas (ranging from 108 to 111 items depending on the module), the personal diary in urban areas records significantly more commodity types consumed than either household diary. In urban areas, the infrequent household diarists record consumption of 139 unique commodity types while the frequent household diarists record 140 commodities. In contrast, households with personal diaries report consumption of 158 separate commodities over the same 2-week period.