We Are What We Eat: Obesity, Income, and Social Comparisons

Abstract

The empirical evidence of a non-monotone relation between income and obesity is not well explained.We build a theoretical model combining income inequality and social comparisons to explain the link between income and obesity and study tax policy implications for fighting obesity. We assume that differences in food consumption patterns between poor and wealthy households partly reflect positionality, which is the concern for social status. Our key assumption is that positionality for low-calorie food consumption is positively related to a country's wealth. In this framework, body weight outcomes reflect competing income and positionality effects, yielding the following results. We explain the link between average obesity rates, and standards of living and suggest the existence of a Kuznets curve for obesity.For cross sections of the population, we explain the observed correlation between income and obesity, which is positive in poor countries, and negative rich countries. We find that increasing the relative cost of high-calorie food is less effective at decreasing the relative weight of poor individuals in rich countries than in poor countries.

Hand-to-mouth Consumption and Calorie Consciousness: Consequences for Junk-food Taxation

“…Also, when tax salience is high, the tax is more effective at reducing the body weight of individuals with a low education because it reinforces the calorie-consciousness effect. This contrasts with Mathieu-Bolh and Wendner’s (2020) results who find that rich individuals respond more to junk-food taxes than poor individuals because the negative income effect comes with a status effect that reinforces the distaste for high-calorie food among rich individuals.…”

“…We explain the negative correlation between income and obesity, and education and obesity prevalence, as the result of a calorie-consciousness effect (CCE) dominating the positive income effect from a higher education. 10 Thus, our result extends the theoretical literature that describes the positive link between income and obesity as the result of technological change (Philipson and Posner 1999; Lakdawalla, Philipson, and Bhattacharya 2005), the negative link between income and obesity as the result of health considerations and social approval (Strulik 2014), and the changing link between income and obesity as the result of endogenous changes in preferences due to the concern for social status (Mathieu-Bolh and Wendner 2020).…”

“…Being overweight causes illness such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, or breathing problems (see Yach, Stuckler, and Brownell 2006; Kopelman 2000; Mertens and van Gaal 2012), and being underweight causes gastrointestinal, endocrine, or neurological illness (see, e.g., Madhusmita and Klibanski 2014; Mathias and Kent 1998). For that reason, this argument is commonly introduced as decreasing instantaneous utility (see Dragone and Savorelli 2012; Strulik 2014; Mathieu-Bolh and Wendner 2020). Substituting (5) in the utility function, utility is expressed as U C H , C L , true W ^ 2 = U C H , ω ¯ π − p ¯ C H true p ¯ L , true W ^ 2 , which given exogenous variables ω ¯ π and true p ¯ H / true p ¯ L can simply be described in a condensed form as a function of endogenous variables C H and true W ^ equal to U C H , W ^ .…”

“…Yaniv, Rosin, and Tobol (2009) find that a junk-food tax reduces body weight for calorie-unconscious consumers and physically inactive calorie-conscious consumers and may increase body weight for calorie-conscious individuals when they reduce the time spent on physical activity. Mathieu-Bolh and Wendner (2020) assume that differences in food consumption patterns between poor and wealthy households partly reflect the concern for social status. They find that increasing the relative cost of high-calorie food results in a decrease in body weight, but it is less effective at decreasing the relative weight of poor individuals in rich countries than in poor countries for calorie-unconscious consumers.…”

The Effect of Business Cycles on Health Expenditure: A Story of Income Inequality in China

“…However, we find nearly no related studies that explore the above relationship from the role of income inequality. Income inequality can affect population health in the following ways: consumption capacity ( 38 – 40 ), psychological state ( 41 – 43 ), and social relations ( 44 – 46 ). Hence, income inequality may influence the effect of business cycles on health expenditure.…”