The effect of tobacco expenditure on expenditure shares in South African households: A genetic matching approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines whether tobacco expenditure leads to the crowding out or crowding in of different expenditure items in South Africa. We apply genetic matching to expenditure quartiles of the 2010/2011 South African Income and Expenditure Survey. Genetic matching is a more appealing approach for dealing with the endogeneity of tobacco expenditure that often plagues studies using systems of demand equations. Further, genetic matching provides transparent measures of covariate balance giving the analyst objective means of assessing match success. We find that the poorest tobacco consuming households in South Africa consistently allocate smaller budget shares towards food items than non-smoking households. Specifically, we find that dairy, fruits, nuts and oils are displaced in favour of tobacco expenditure in the two poorest quartiles. Unsurprisingly, food items are never displaced for households in the top two quartiles, given these households' greater access to resources. Like other studies in the literature, we find that tobacco expenditure consistently crowds-in alcohol across all quartiles confirming the strong complementarities between the two.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".