Unequal Expenditure Switching:Evidence from the 2015 Swiss Franc Appreciation
By Raphael Auer, Ariel Burstein, Sarah Lein, Jonathan Vogel
November, 2020
Questions
How do consumers adjust expenditures and how does welfare respond tochanges in foreign prices?
Margins of adjustment:
I Imports vs. domestic goods
I Cross-border (CB) shopping vs. domestic shopping
How do these responses vary across households...
I ... with different incomes?
I ... at different distances to CB shopping?
Focus on Switzerland:1 Data availability
2 Characteristics lending itself to important role of CB shopping
3 January 2015 Swiss Franc appreciation
January 2015 Swiss Franc Appreciation
11.0
51.1
1.1
51.2
1.2
5
EU
R/C
HF
1/1/2013 1/1/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2016 1/1/2017
date
January 2015 Swiss Franc Appreciation
Sept. 6, 2011: After sharp appreciation of the Swiss franc (CHF), SwissNational Bank (SNB) introduced a min. exchange rate of 1.20 CHF per EUR
Late 2014, early 2015: Foreign developments (e.g., anticipation of large QEprogram in the euro area) raised perceived cost of sustaining CHF policy
Jan. 15, 2015: SNB unexpectedly abandons minimum exchange rateI ⇒ Large and sudden appreciation of the CHF
Subsequent appreciation episode is unique in a number of ways
1 Policy change triggered by foreign developments
2 Followed a period of exchange rate stability
3 Exchange rate movement was large in magnitude
4 Appreciation occurred against the backdrop of a stable Swiss economy
Heterogeneous price implicationsAverage log price by month for imports, domestic goods, and cross-border purchases
weighted by total expenditures in 2014
Increases in import and CB expenditure shares accompany these price changes
Heterogeneous expenditure-side effects
Identify heterogeneous effects of price shock across agents arising from
initial exposure (initial expenditure shares on imports, CB shopping)
responsiveness (elasticities of substitution btw import, domestic, CB)
associated with differences in
income (e.g. non-homotheticity)
distance to the border (e.g. different costs of CB shopping)
Using detailed Swiss non-durable consumption data
Heterogeneity in initial exposure in 2014
CB expenditure share M expenditure shareProximity to the border + 0Income 0 0
Heterogeneity in responsiveness 2014-2015
CB expenditure share M expenditure shareProximity to the border 0 0Income 0 –
Implications for welfare (and employment)
Leveraging the 2015 appreciation
1 Estimate differences in import elasticities by income
2 Calibrate level of import elasticity and CB elasticity
Construct equivalent variation by income, distance to CB shopping in response toobserved (CHF appreciation and 2020 border closure), counterfactual foreign shocks
1 Income: Low income households substitute more btw imports and domestic goods ⇒they benefit more (or lose less) from large changes in import prices
2 Distance to the border: Those near CB shopping have higher CB shares ⇒ theybenefit more (or lose more) from changes in foreign prices
For example, welfare impact of 20%↑ in cost of imports and CB shopping
Far from CB shopping Near CB shoppingHigh income −5.2 −6.5Low income −4.1 −5.5
Spatial heterogeneity in CB shopping also has implications for employmentresponses to foreign price shocks
I Retail employment 2015/14 falls in 4-digit zip codes relatively closer to CB shopping
Relation to literature: Heterogeneity across income
Differential price effect across income groups of international shocks
Previous research: do not observe trade shares by income, so fill gaps in data byI structural model to infer shares from aggregate trade flows (Fajgelbaum-Khandelwal, 2016)
I common trade shares and elasticities w/in “sector,” diffs in expenditure across (Cravinoand Levchenko 17; Jaravel and Sager, 19; Borusyak and Jaravel, 18; Caroll and Hur, 19; Hottman and Monarch, 20)
I do not estimate elasticities, measure price indices by group using S-V weights —assume no demand shocks of any form over time (Bai and Stumpner, 2019)
Differential price effect across income groups of domestic shocks Jaravel (2019); Faber and Fally (2020)
Price sensitivity and income in macro models Kaplan-Menzio (2016); Alessandria and Kaboski (2011)
Expenditure switching due to income effects, using product-level data Bems and Di Giovanni (2016)
We observe import share by income, estimate import elasticity by income
Limitation: Data on a small set of goods (supermarkets and drugstores)
Relation to literature: Heterogeneity across space
Cross border shopping and exchange rate movements
Measures of CB shopping: same-day trips across border (Chandra, Head, and Tappata, 2004)
Cross-border shopping and price level differences w/in EU (Beck, Kotz, and Zabelina, 2020)
Retail employment and proximity to the border in response to exchange ratemovements (Campbell and Lapham, 2004; Baggs, Fung, and Lapham, 2015)
Data and models of spatial shopping Agarwal, Jensen, Monte (2020), Miyauchi, Nakajima and Redding (2020), Allen, Fuchs,
Ganapati, Graziano, Madera, Montoriol-Garriga (2020)
Spatial taxes and shopping Agrawal (2017), Baker, Johnson, Kueng (2020), Goolsbee (2000), Liran, Knoepfle, Levin, Sundaresan(2014)
Data: We observe large xrate shock + CB expenditures, trips, transactionsby household, income, region
We study the impact of foreign price shocks on welfare and employmentacross space
Data requirements and sources
Data requirements and sources
Data requirements
Household income (and size) and distance to CB shopping
Household-level panel data on expenditures by product & country of purchase
Product-country-of-purchase-specific panel on prices
For products purchased in Switzerland, data on production location
Data sources
AC Nielsen homescan: Retail prices and (offline) expendituresI Covers a demographically, regionally representative sample of ≈ 3,000
households in Switzerland Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2016, Jan. 2019 - July 2020F 7 income bins, 9 size bins, 76 two-digit zip codes
I Participating households record purchases in supermarkets and drugstores(food, beverages, personal and household items)
I Observation is a transaction:F household ID, barcode (European Article Number, or EAN) of product, quantity,
price (net of good-specific discounts), date of purchase, name of retailer
F whether purchase occurred in Switzerland or abroad (Austria, France, Germany)
Data requirements and sources
Data requirements
Household income (and size) and distance to CB shopping
Household-level panel data on expenditures by product & country of purchase
Product-country-of-purchase-specific panel on prices
For products purchased in Switzerland, data on production location
Data sources
codecheck.info: info on country of production for a subset of goodsI 63% of goods, 72% of exp. in Nielsen in 36 months surrounding appreciation
I import share in expenditures 27% in 2014, similar to total import share inconsumption reported in in SFSO (2014)
Household income and size
At sample entry, household reports binned income (Top) and size (Bottom)
1 Some income and size bins are small
2 Income distribution closely reflects that of countryI Annual wages in 2014 by percentile (Swiss Earnings Structure Survey):
F 20th 29.3K , 50th 52.8K , 80th 75.8K
I Annual disposable income in 2014 by percentile (Federal Statistical Office):F 25th 35.8K , 50th 49.2K , 75th 67.5K , 90th 91.2K
3 Income is predictive of expenditures income vs expenditure
Expenditure shares on products in our dataFrom the Federal Statistical Office, 2015-17
Expenditures on product categories in our data account for ≈ 20% of aggregateexpenditure
I However, import share on product categories in our data similar to overall importshare (on goods and services)
Share of total expenditure on product categories in our data and goods morebroadly decreases with household income
I Another source of heterogeneous exposure (from which we abstract)I see e.g. Cravino and Levchenko 17; Borusyak and Jaravel, 18
Driving time to CB shopping
Driving time measurement for each 2-digit (or 4-digit) zip code, z
I Identify supermarkets close to Swiss border in Germany, France, Italy, Austria
I Identify the largest town by population in each z , tz
I Use viamichelin.ch (similar to google maps) to measure min. driving time toand from tz to foreign supermarkets, keeping only minimum
ImportsHomogeneous initial exposure
Heterogeneous responsiveness
Homogeneous initial import exposureNo differences across households in import shares by income or distance
Import share in our data is 26.9% in 2014 and 27.8% in 2015
Question: How does it vary with HH characteristics?
XMht /(XD
ht + XMht ) = αt + β1t ln(inch) + β2t ln(sizeh) + β3t ln(driveh) + εht
(1) (2) (3) (4)log income 0.006 -0.004 0.002 -0.011
[0.005] [0.006] [0.005] [0.007]log HH size -0.019∗∗∗ -0.014∗ -0.021∗∗∗ -0.009
[0.006] [0.008] [0.005] [0.006]log drive time -0.007∗ -0.009∗ 0.003 -0.003
[0.004] [0.005] [0.003] [0.004]Adjusted R2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00year 2014 2015 2014 2015Observations 3302 2918 3302 3300weighted Y Y N N
(weighing h share of expenditure w/in (income, size) × # of h in (income, size))
Income insignificant
Distance effects are economically small, statistically not robust
Average import responsiveness across all householdsIncrease in import relative to domestic expenditure at the HH level starting after appreciation
ln
(XMht
XDht
)= α+ FEh + FEt + εht
In this and all HH-level regressions we:
cluster by (income, size) bins Import share Alt. weight
weight: h share of expenditure w/in (income, size) × # of h in (income, size)I each (income, size) gets weight given by number of householdsI within (income, size), relative weights across h given by expenditure in 14
Common interval of months in all t (starting with January 15th) b/c of seasonalityI eg, in month 5, XM
ht = expenditure on imports btw Jan 15th-May 15th in year t
(weighing h share of expenditure w/in (income, size) × # of h in (income, size))
Heterogeneous import responsivenessImport share ↑ more for low income groups following 2015 appreciation
ln
(XM
ht
XDht
)= FEt + FEh +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + [Controlsht ] + εht
where xh equals either I{Inch>42.5K} or ln(Inch) η calibration
High Income Dummy Ln(Income)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Income 2013 -0.047∗∗ -0.052∗∗ -0.052∗∗ -0.030∗ -0.034∗ -0.034∗[0.018] [0.022] [0.022] [0.015] [0.019] [0.019]
Income 2015 -0.067∗∗∗ -0.073∗∗∗ -0.073∗∗∗ -0.057∗∗∗ -0.064∗∗∗ -0.064∗∗∗[0.020] [0.025] [0.025] [0.010] [0.013] [0.013]
Income 2016 -0.083∗∗∗ -0.077∗∗ -0.077∗∗ -0.071∗∗∗ -0.067∗∗∗ -0.068∗∗∗[0.031] [0.031] [0.032] [0.022] [0.022] [0.022]
HH Size 2013 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.011[0.022] [0.022] [0.023] [0.023]
HH Size 2015 0.014 0.015 0.019 0.019[0.019] [0.018] [0.018] [0.018]
HH Size 2016 -0.013 -0.013 -0.008 -0.008[0.024] [0.024] [0.020] [0.020]
Distance 2013 -0.005 -0.005[0.013] [0.013]
Distance 2015 -0.006 -0.006[0.020] [0.020]
Distance 2016 -0.003 -0.003[0.021] [0.021]
Observations 11577 11577 11577 11577 11577 11577
Adjusted R2 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780
Negative 2013 coefficient: import shares ↑ more for high Y groups btw 2013/2014
no evidence of continuation of pre-existing trends
Heterogeneous import responsivenessResults hold at more aggregate level and within product groups
Aggregate to the HH income × size groupadditionally estimating w/in product groups
Within product group
High inc. Ln(income) High inc. Ln(income)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Income 2013 -0.044 -0.053∗ -0.015 -0.021 -0.029 -0.043 0.007 -0.002[0.028] [0.030] [0.022] [0.024] [0.027] [0.028] [0.029] [0.032]
Income 2015 -0.071∗∗ -0.083∗∗∗ -0.058∗∗∗ -0.071∗∗∗ -0.071∗∗∗ -0.079∗∗∗ -0.061∗∗∗ -0.071∗∗∗[0.028] [0.030] [0.022] [0.024] [0.021] [0.025] [0.020] [0.025]
Income 2016 -0.087∗∗∗ -0.083∗∗∗ -0.091∗∗∗ -0.092∗∗∗ -0.058 -0.056 -0.074∗∗ -0.077∗[0.028] [0.030] [0.022] [0.024] [0.040] [0.040] [0.036] [0.040]
HH Size Control No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Observations 211 211 211 211 9954 9954 9954 9954
Adjusted R2 0.720 0.722 0.737 0.736 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.935
Aggregating across h at the income × size group level (Columns 1-4)
ln
(XM
ht
XDht
)= FEt + FEh +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + [Controlsht ] + εht
and estimating at the income × size group level by product group g (Columns 5-8)
ln
(XM
hgt
XDhgt
)= FEgt + FEhg +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + [Controlsht ] + εht
Heterogeneous import responsiveness: robustness exercisesResults are robust to the following
Replace ln(XMht
/XD
ht ) with XMht
/(XD
ht + XMht ) Go
Don’t weigh observations Go
Replace income and size with income per capita Go
Horizons from 1-12 (baseline is 12)
I Household aggregation Go
I Income × size aggregation Go
I Income × size aggregation within product group Go
Cross-border shoppingHeterogeneous initial exposure
Homogeneous responsiveness
Price gaps between shopping domestically and CBQuarterly series using balanced sample of EAN codes
Median price gap between identical EAN codes purchased in Switzerland andforeign countries, using Swiss Nielsen data only (left) or Swiss + German, Italian,Austrian Nielsen data (right)
Price gap using purchases made bySwiss only
Price gap using purchases made bySwiss and neighbors
Prices are lower abroad
The gap in prices grows after appreciation
Three measures of CB shares in 2014
Three measures of CB shares (out of total) by time horizon in 2014
1 Expenditures
2 Transactions: count of a HH’s purchases (EAN code-day-location)
3 Trips: count of days on which a HH purchases anything CB model
Share is btw 1.4% and 2.6% across horizons and measures
Share of HHs engaged in CB shopping in 2014 (by horizon)
Share increases from 12% to 33% with horizon
Heterogeneous initial exposure to CB shoppingHigher CB shares closer to CB shopping (by 2-digit zip code) in 2014 (and all years)
Driving time Expenditure share
Trip share Transaction share
Heterogeneous initial exposure to CB shoppingHigher CB shares closer to CB shopping (by 2-digit zip code) in 2014 (and all years)
Expenditure share
Trip share Transaction share
Heterogeneous initial exposure to CB shoppingHigher CB exposure closer to the border (but no differences across income or size)
yht = αt + β1t ln(inch) + β2t ln(sizeh) + β3t ln(driveh) + εht
where yht : HH’s share of expenditures, trips, transactions abroad
Expenditures Trips Transactions
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)log income -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 -0.002
[0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.003] [0.003] [0.004]log HH size 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.004
[0.001] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.003]log drive time -0.016∗∗∗ -0.017∗∗∗ -0.018∗∗∗ -0.020∗∗∗ -0.030∗∗∗ -0.032∗∗∗
[0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.003] [0.003]Adjusted R2 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09year 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015Observations 3309 2921 3309 2921 3309 2921weighted Y Y Y Y Y Y
(weighing h share of expenditure w/in (income, size) × # of h in (income, size))
Average CB responsiveness across all householdsIncrease in CB shares starting after appreciation
XCBht
Xht= α + FEh + FEt + εht
Expenditures
Transactions Trips
Homogeneous responsiveness of CB shopping
yht = FEt + FEh +∑
y 6=2014
Iy=t
(βt ln(incomeh) + ρt ln(sizeh) + γt ln(disth)
)+ εht
Defining yht as
I the share,XCBhtXht
, Go
I or log ratio, ln(
1+XCBht
1+XnonCBht
)... Go
...for Xht defined as Trips, Transactions, or Expenditures...
...we find no evidence of robust heterogeneous responsiveness across incomes,distance, or size
Welfare (and employment) implications
Motivating theoretical framework
What are the distributional effects of factual
I exchange rate appreciation of January 15th, 2015?
I COVID-related border lockdown?
and counterfactual changes in prices of imports and CB shopping?
Simple model consistent with empirical observations
I Standard framework w/ known welfare aggregation
I Direct structural interpretation of reduced-form coefficients
I Highlight measurement issues in CB expenditure shares and provide resolution
I Imposes a number of restrictions that we relax in robustness
Roadmap
1 Imports only (limit of baseline model in which CB is zero)
2 Add cross-border shopping
Model with imports and domestic goods, no CB shopping
If a household h only shops locally, price index Pht = PDMht is given by
PDMht =
(ζht(PMht
)1−ηh+ (1− ζht)
(PDht
)1−ηh)1/(1−ηh)
which arises from CES aggregator with elasticity ηh
Letting y = y ′/y for any y and XDht , X
Mht denote expenditures,
PDMht =
(XD
ht
XDht + XM
ht
(PDht
)1−ηh+
XMht
XDht + XM
ht
(PMht
)1−ηh) 1
1−ηh
We report (proportional) equivalent variation [“welfare”]
EV ≡ 100× ln
(E(p0, u1)
E(p0, u0)
)= 100× ln
(E(p0, u1)
E(p1, u1)
)which is simply
EV = −100× log PDMht
Baseline model discussion: I
Introduce endogenous differences in ηh (non-homothetic preferences) in robustness
I As in limit, consider consumers who do not CB shop Go
Easy to introduce outside good
I Abstract from it in quantification
F Not overstating aggregate welfare effects of international shocks, since importshare similar in our data and in overall consumption
F However, abstracting from heterogeneity in outside good shares abstracts fromcomponents of inequality featuring in e.g., Cravino and Levchenko (2017) and
Borusyak and Jaravel (2018) Go
We abstract from product group heterogeneityI Changes in import shares are largely driven within categories within product
I In estimation robustness, we incorporate multiple product groups
I (For CB: not sufficient cross-border shopping data)
Baseline calibration of ηh: I
Model implication
ln
(XMht
XDht
)= (1− ηh) ln
(PMht
PDht
)+ ln
(ζht
1− ζht
)Baseline assumptions
1 Common ln(PMht /P
Dht) across households
ln
(XMht
XDht
)= (1− ηh) ln
(PMt
PDt
)+ ln
(ζht
1− ζht
)
2 Parametrization: ηh =
{ηP for lowest two income groups
ηR for highest five income groupsIncome distr.
Baseline calibration of ηh: II
Expressing the previous equation in differences (btw 2014-15)
∆ ln
(XM
h15
XDh15
)= α + βIInch>y + εh (1)
where α ≡ (1− ηP)∆ ln(PM15/P
D15), β ≡ (ηP − ηR)∆ ln(PM
15/PD15), εh ≡ ∆(ζh15/(1− ζh15))
(1) is equivalent to our reduced-form regression (in differences) RF regs
Structural parameters ηP and ηR
At 12 month horizon, βOLS = −0.067 (SE = −0.020), αOLS = 0.082 (SE= 0.018),
∆ ln(PM
15/PDD
)= −0.021 prices
If demand shocks uncorrelated with income ⇒ ηP − ηR = 3.19
If average demand shock is zero ⇒ ηP = 4.73⇒ ηR = 1.54
Higher values of ηs, alternative functional form (ηh = γ0 − γ1 ln(Inch)), prices varying by
HH characteristicsI Defer robustness of calibration, combine with robustness of results
Changes in import prices and income-group-specific welfareEquivalent variation for various import price changes (for HHs engaged in no CB shopping)
log change import price 2.10 10 20 30 40 50 10000
Changes in welfareEV low income -0.55 -2.35 -4.10 -5.38 -6.29 -6.94 -8.44EV high income -0.56 -2.65 -5.19 -7.63 -9.98 -12.23 -58.28EV high / low income 1.02 1.12 1.26 1.42 1.58 1.76 6.91
Initial import share (given elasticities) at which income groups have common EVImport share low income 27.7 30.2 33.5 36.8 40.1 43.3 88.6Import share high income 26.3 24.0 21.4 19.1 17.2 15.6 4.5
Poor being more elastic, suffer less from given import price increase
I To a first-order approximation, import elasticity irrelevantI Gap in welfare changes grow with size of shock
Import share for (e.g.) low income at which ∆ welfare for low and high income are equated
I Higher than actual common import share of 27%I With this initial import share growing in the size of the shock
Robustness
1 Non-homothetic preferences and endogenous changes in ηh Go
I Smaller welfare losses from import price ↑ w/ non-homothetic demandF HHs become poorer ⇒ substitute away from imports even more
2 Higher values of ηs holding fixed ηP − ηR Go
I Relative welfare changes smaller the higher are import elasticities
I However, only quantitatively relevant for large import price changes
3 Alternative functional form: ηh = γ0 − γ1 ln(Inch)− [γ2 ln(sizeh)] Go
I Multiple ηs simply smooths effects across income distribution
I Incorporating size (or not) has little effect
4 Prices varying by HH income × size Go
I Differences in elasticities across incomes (and hence results) very similar to baseline
Baseline model incorporating CB expenditureAssumptions
Within period, HH makes a continuum of shopping trips, z , and maximizes
Ch =
∫ 1
0
(∑s
Ush × (εsh(z))1−κ × C s
h (z)
) ρ−1ρ
dz
ρρ−1
for shopping location s ∈ {CB,DM}, subject to budget constraint
Inch =∑s
P shV
sh
∫ 1
0
C sh (z)× (εsh(z))−κdz
(interest rate 6= 0 within period and time discounting has no effect on results)
I Ush : systematic demand shifter (e.g. amenity, time) for shopping in location s
I (εs(z))1−κ: idiosyncratic demand shifter for shopping in location s in trip z
I Psh : retail price index per unit of consumption when shopping in location s
I V sh : systematic non-retail, monetary cost shifter associated with shopping in s
I (εs(z))−κ: idiosyncratic non-retailer monetary cost shifter of shopping in s in trip z
εs(z) distributed Frechet, G (ε) = exp(−ε−θ
)θ > ρ− 1
I Abstract from differences in CB elasticities by income given empirical results
Baseline model incorporating CB expenditureImplications: trip and expenditure shares
Model limits to trade-only model when either UCBh = 0 or V CB
h =∞
HH chooses location s for shopping trip z ⇐⇒ Ushε
sh(z)
V shPsh> maxs′ 6=s
{Us′h ε
s′h (z)
V s′h
Ps′h
}Let πs
h denote the share of trips HH makes in location s
πsh =
[Ush/ (P s
hVsh )]θ∑
s′[Us′
h /(P s′h V s′
h
)]θMonetary cost borne by HH is P s
hVsh (εsh(z))−κ
Distribution of expenditures across trips in s determined by distribution ofC sh (z)P s
hVsh (εsh(z))−κ conditional on shopping in s in trip z
I This distribution is independent of s ⇒ πh(s) is also expenditure shareI Not true of distribution of mismeasured expenditures (using P s
h for price)F If κ 6= 0, then the elasticity of mismeasured expenditures is not θ
F If κ = 0,V CBh > VDM
h , mismeasured CB expend. share < true version Data
Baseline model incorporating CB expenditureImplications: welfare
Letting Ph = Ch/Inch, we obtain Ph = γ[∑
s (V shP
sh/U
sh)−θ
]−1θ
In response to a change in retailer prices, (letting x = x ′/x for any x)
Ph =
[∑s
πsh
(P sh
)−θ]−1θ
Implications:
Constructing factual or counterfactual changes in welfare requires:
1 cross border shopping elasticity θ
2 initial expenditure (equivalently, trip) share by shopping location, πsh
3 changes in retail price index by shopping location, Psh
Measure πsh using trip share, which equals true expenditure shares
Similarly, parametrize θ using trip share
Baseline model additional implications and discussion
Additional implications that are consistent with our data
If we observe a random discrete sample of trips per HH per month, share ofHHs engaged in CB shopping rises with a longer horizon
In response to CHF appreciation (i.e. reduction in PCBh )
1 Share of CB trips rises
2 If we observe a random discrete sample of trips per HH, share of HHs engagedin CB shopping rises
Discussion of modeling choices
Instead of continuum of trips, can assume a fixed, finite number of trips,χ = 1 (implies common expenditure across trips), unknown realizations of εs
I Household welfare (and whether it shops abroad) is random each period
I Aggregating across continuum of agents yields same welfare expression
I Share of HHs engaged in CB shopping rises with CHF appreciation
No fixed cost of CB shopping or dynamic HH inventoriesI Dividing products by perishability, for all three CB measures: perishable
I While CB shares are higher (2-3×) for non-perishable items...
I ...both fall with distance
I ...and responsiveness to appreciation very similar (+ not statistically different)
Baseline calibration of θ using trips share
ln
(πCBht
πDMht
)= −θ ln
(PCBht
PDMht
)+ θ ln
(UCBht /V
CBht
UDMht /V DM
ht
)Baseline assumption
Common ln(PCBht /P
DMht ) across households (true in model to a first order)
Expressing the previous equation in differences (btw 2014-15)
∆ ln
(πCBh15
πDMh15
)= α + ιht where α ≡ −θ∆ ln
(PCB
15
PDM15
)Structural parameter θ
At 12 month horizon, αOLS = 0.095 (SE= 0.032) and ∆ ln(
PCB15
PDM15
)= −0.062.
If average demand shock is zero ⇒ θ = 1.53Alternatives leading to robustness of θ ∈ [1, 2.5]
1 Use ↑ aggregate CB trip share (0.026 to 0.029): ⇒ θ = 2.10
2 Using transactions: θ = 1.18 or 2.20 using regression or aggregate
3 Using expenditures: θ = 1.00 or 1.28 using regression or aggregate
4 At horizon of 3 months using CB trip share: θ = 1.28 or 2.13 using...
5 CB trip share in zip codes w/in 30 minutes of CB: θ = 1.92 or 2.02 using...
Change in welfare in response to 2015 appreciationIncorporating both imports and CB shopping
Feed in 12-month-horizon changes in CB and DM price indices
Measure πCBh14 using share of CB trips transactions
Equivalent variation for low income
Those closer to CB shopping gain substantially more employment effects
Values of θ and ηh (hence, heterogeneity in ηh) matter little for EV with small shocks
Closing of the border for CB shopping
Switzerland closed its borders to and from the Schengen area fornon-essential traffic to mitigate spread of Covid 19
TimelineI March 17: Borders to Austria, France, and Germany closed
I March 17 - April 26: Lockdown
I April 27 - May 10: Partial reopening
I May 11 - June 15: All shops reopened
I June 16: Borders to EU reopened
Calculate welfare effects across space of this border closing
Closing of the border for CB shoppingCB shares across space fall to close to 0 during lockdown
Debit card data
Closing of the border for CB shoppingCB shares across space fall to, or almost to, zero during lockdown
Transactions Expenditures
Closing of the border for CB shoppingChange in domestic+import prices across space during lockdown
No systematic changes in non-CB prices across space within Switzerland
⇒ We evaluate welfare given fixed non-CB prices
Closing of the border for CB shoppingWelfare falls substantially close to the border
Closing of the border for CB shoppingSensitivity to CB elasticity θ
Conclusions
Unequal effects of internationally-induced price changes
Spatial variation by distance to cross-border shopping
I Largely absent in the literature
I Those living closer to border benefit more from foreign price reductionI Quite important for Switzerland; more generally, relevant margin for
F small countries, countries w/ substantial populations along borders (Canada)
F regional tax changes
F spatial shopping literature
Variation by household income
I This is the heart of a large international trade literature
I We find large variation in price sensitivities (lower income more price sensitive),a margin from which the literature largely abstracts (due to data limitations)
I Lower income benefit more (or suffer less) from large price changes
Appendix
Average expenditure by income group (bin scatter)Income bin is predictive of expenditure
(weighted by number of HHs)
Income and expenditure at the HH levelIncome bin is predictive of expenditure
Estimate separately by year:
ln(expht) = αt + β1t ln(inch) + β2t ln(sizeh) + β3t ln(driveh) + εht
(1) (2)log income 0.115∗∗∗ 0.120∗∗∗
[0.020] [0.026]log HH size 0.375∗∗∗ 0.354∗∗∗
[0.019] [0.025]log drive time 0.037∗∗ 0.047∗∗
[0.017] [0.022]Adjusted R2 0.15 0.10year 2014 2015Observations 3309 2921weighted Y Y
back
Import responsiveness by horizonHorizon robustness at household aggregation
Replicating HH aggregation, Columns 3 and 6 for each horizon
ln
(XMht
XDht
)= FEt + FEh +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + Controlsht + εht
High income ln income
Back
Import responsiveness by horizonHorizon robustness at income × size aggregation
Replicating income×size aggregation, Columns 2 and 4 for each horizon
ln
(XMht
XDht
)= FEt + FEh +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + Controlsht + εht
High income ln income
Back
Import responsiveness by horizonHorizon robustness at income × size aggregation within product group
Replicating income×size aggregation within product group, Columns 6 and 8 foreach horizon
ln
(XMhgt
XDhgt
)= FEgt + FEhg +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + [Controlsht ] + εht
High income ln income
Back
Cross border responsiveness of CB shopping: baseline(XCB
ht
Xht
)= FEt + FEh +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + Controlsht + εht
where xh equals either I{Inch>42.5K} or ln(Inch), for three measures of Xht
Expenditures Trips Transactions
High inc. Ln(income) High inc. Ln(income) High inc. Ln(income)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Income 2013 0.001∗∗ 0.001∗ 0.001∗ 0.001∗ 0.001 0.000[0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
Income 2015 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001[0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
Income 2016 -0.000 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002∗[0.001] [0.001] [0.002] [0.001] [0.002] [0.001]
HH Size 2013 -0.001 -0.001 -0.000 -0.001 0.000 0.000[0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
HH Size 2015 0.002∗ 0.002∗ 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002∗[0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
HH Size 2016 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002[0.001] [0.001] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002]
Distance 2013 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001[0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
Distance 2015 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002∗ -0.002∗ -0.002∗ -0.002∗[0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
Distance 2016 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001[0.001] [0.001] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002]
Observations 11646 11646 11646 11646 11646 11646
Adjusted R2 0.786 0.786 0.806 0.806 0.848 0.848
Back
Cross border responsiveness of CB shopping: robustness
ln
(1 + XCB
ht
1 + X nonCBht
)= FEt + FEh +
∑y 6=2014
βtIy=txh + Controlsht + εht
where xh equals either I{Inch>42.5K} or ln(Inch), for three measures of Xht
Expenditures Trips Transactions
High inc. Ln(income) High inc. Ln(income) High inc. Ln(income)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Income 2013 -0.183 -0.180 -0.031 -0.041 -0.010 -0.029[0.138] [0.125] [0.049] [0.047] [0.032] [0.027]
Income 2015 -0.142 -0.089 -0.031 -0.023 0.003 -0.001[0.144] [0.122] [0.056] [0.044] [0.036] [0.028]
Income 2016 -0.191 -0.063 -0.057 -0.027 -0.029 -0.020[0.180] [0.155] [0.061] [0.044] [0.042] [0.029]
HH Size 2013 0.041 0.060 -0.029 -0.022 -0.021 -0.013[0.099] [0.087] [0.035] [0.029] [0.023] [0.020]
HH Size 2015 0.105 0.101 0.022 0.023 0.035∗ 0.036∗[0.109] [0.093] [0.041] [0.036] [0.021] [0.019]
HH Size 2016 0.192 0.165 0.041 0.036 0.021 0.020[0.173] [0.164] [0.055] [0.054] [0.031] [0.029]
Distance 2013 0.116 0.116 -0.009 -0.009 -0.002 -0.002[0.108] [0.108] [0.034] [0.034] [0.021] [0.022]
Distance 2015 0.261∗ 0.262∗ 0.041 0.041 0.020 0.020[0.148] [0.149] [0.041] [0.041] [0.021] [0.021]
Distance 2016 -0.013 -0.011 0.006 0.006 0.021 0.021[0.147] [0.147] [0.043] [0.042] [0.024] [0.024]
Observations 11646 11646 11646 11646 11646 11646
Adjusted R2 0.717 0.717 0.804 0.804 0.814 0.814
Back
Prices intro
We assume
1 No product entry or exit
F Small Homescan sample, particularly at HH income, HH size, geographic levels
F Regressions often at household level
2 We observe a representative sample of products
For estimation, use a first-order approximation of price indices PMt , PD
t
I Laspeyres: initial period shares
Prices details
Detailed product price (eancode) change by CB status and horizon
I monthly price: by detailed product, and CB status of purchase, takeunweighted geometric average price across transactions
I price for given horizon: simple geometric average across months in horizon
I take ln changes across years w/in common horizon, eancode, and CB status
Aggregate across eancodes to construct price indices for
D domestic purchases of domestically produced goods
M domestic purchases of imported goods
CB cross border purchases
Robustness:
I Sato-Vartia weights rather than first-order approximation
I Income and size-specific expenditures as weights across products
Back to η calibration
Change in retail employmentWhat are the implications of CB shopping for retail employment?
In response to CHF appreciation, DM expenditure decreases
XCBh
XDMh
=
(UCBh /
(V CBh PCB
h
)UDMh /
(V DMh PDM
h
))θ
and XCBh + XDM
h = Inch ⇒
d lnXDMh = πCB
h θd ln
(PCBh
PDMh
)and if θ > 0 ↓ by more the greater is the initial share of expenditure in CB
I Expenditure = retail revenue if κ = 0 and either V CBh = V DM
h or V DMh = 1
⇒ Impact on Swiss retail revenue is larger closer to CB shopping
If employment is increasing in revenue, same holds for employment
We test this hypothesis around the 2015 appreciation, obtaining industryemployment by 4-digit zip codes from the Business Census (“STATENT”)
Change in retail employmentBinscatter across 4-digit zip codes of 2-year ln changes in retail employment: 2014-16
(no controls, weighing by total employment of 4-digit zip in 2014)
Retail employment ↓ closer to the border (relatively) around CHF appreciation
Spatial heterogeneity in CB shopping has implications for employment responses toforeign price shocks
Change in non-retail employmentBinscatter across 4-digit zip codes of 2-year ln changes in non-retail employment: 2014-16
(no controls, weighing by total employment of 4-digit zip in 2014)
Reallocation towards non-retail employment closer to the border
Change in retail (and non-retail) employmentWhat are the implications of CB shopping for retail employment across 4-digit zip codes?
We stack 4-digit zip codes, z , and years, t (2013-16), and estimate
ln(empzt) = αt + αz + βt ln(distz) + γt ln(incz) + εzt
separately for retail employment and non-retail employment back
(weighing by total employment of 4-digit zip in 2014, over 2600 zip codes)
Average import responsiveness across all householdsIncrease in import expenditure share at the HH level starting after appreciation
XMht
XDht + XM
ht
= α + FEh + FEt + εht
(weighing h share of expenditure w/in (income, size) × # of h in (income, size))
Back
Average import responsiveness across all householdsIncrease in import relative to domestic expenditure at the HH level starting after appreciation
ln
(XMht
XDht
)= α + FEh + FEt + εht
(weighing h by expenditure in 2014)
Back
Decomposition
Decompose changes in aggregate import share ωt over time
I Let g denote product categories, XM ,XDM exp on M and M + D
I Aggregate import sharet : ωt ≡ XMt
XDMt
=∑
g
XMgt
XDMgt
XDMgt
XDMt
∆ωt =∑g
∆
(XM
gt
XDMgt
)Avg
(XDM
gt
XDMt
)︸ ︷︷ ︸
within
+∑g
Avg
(XM
gt
XDMgt
)∆
(XDM
gt
XDMt
)︸ ︷︷ ︸
between
I Within share of aggregate change by horizon always dominates between
Does relative importance of within share vary with income per capita?
I Construct ∆ωjt by j = HH income × HH size bins and regress on ln incomej
I Insignificant relationship in all horizons
Decomposition
Within share of aggregate change by horizon always large
Back
Change in welfare in response to 2015 appreciationImports and CB for low income households: robustness using transaction share
Equivalent variation for low income
back
Import responsiveness: robustness exercises 1 and 2
Dep var import share Unweighted
High inc. Ln(income) High inc. Ln(income)
(1) (2) (3) (4)Income 2013 -0.009∗∗ -0.041∗∗ -0.049∗∗ -0.041∗∗
[0.004] [0.020] [0.024] [0.020]Income 2015 -0.012∗∗∗ -0.071∗∗∗ -0.076∗∗∗ -0.071∗∗∗
[0.004] [0.019] [0.023] [0.019]Income 2016 -0.013∗∗ -0.065∗∗∗ -0.051 -0.065∗∗∗
[0.006] [0.021] [0.034] [0.021]Observations 11630 12057 12057 12057Adjusted R2 0.770 0.731 0.731 0.731
Columns 1 and 2: Replace ln(XMht
/XDht ) with XM
ht
/(XD
ht + XMht )
Columns 3 and 4: Don’t weigh observations
All regressions include HH size and distance interacted with year
Back
Import responsiveness: robustness exercise 3
Household aggregation Income x size aggregation
Within product group
(1) (2) (3)Ln(Income/HH size) 2013 -0.022 -0.019 -0.014
[0.019] [0.020] [0.028]Ln(Income/HH size) 2015 -0.041∗∗∗ -0.053∗∗∗ -0.047∗
[0.014] [0.020] [0.024]Ln(Income/HH size) 2016 -0.029 -0.046∗∗ -0.042
[0.020] [0.020] [0.028]Observations 11577 211 9954Adjusted R2 0.779 0.717 0.935
Replace income and size with income per capita
All regressions include distance interacted with year
Back
Non-homotheticityFor a household with no CB shopping
Following Fally (...) and Faber and Fally (....), utility is implicitly defined by
f (Cht)η(Cht )−1
η(Cht ) =
(ζ
1η(Cht )
ht
(CMht
) η(Cht )−1
η(Cht ) + (1− ζht)1
η(Cht )(CDht
) η(Cht )−1
η(Cht )
)where η(C ) = γ0 − γ1 ln(C )
Since utility is ↑ function of income, in initial eqm normalize Cht = Incγ2
htI pins down f (C) for any γ2 > 0 (results on EV invariant to γ2)
Focus on poorest (Inch = 20K and second-richest Inch = 135K ) groupsI Choose γ0, γ1 to match—in initial eqm—ηP and ηR (from CES calibration)
I in calibration, as in counterfactuals, assume fixed CHF income
Choose ζht s.t. import shares are 27% for all HHs in initial eqm
Now import elasticities respond to shocksI ↑ in foreign prices ⇒ real income ↓ ⇒ elasticity ↑ ⇒ Welfare losses are smaller
Measure welfare changes using equivalent variation
back to discussion back to robustness
Non-homotheticityFor a household with no CB shopping
log change import price 2.1 10 20 30 40 50 10000
CES demand systemEV low income -0.55 -2.35 -4.10 -5.38 -6.29 -6.94 -8.44EV high income -0.56 -2.65 -5.19 -7.63 -9.98 -12.23 -58.28
non-homothetic demand systemEV low income -0.55 -2.35 -4.08 -5.33 -6.21 -6.82 -8.14EV high income -0.56 -2.64 -5.16 -7.53 -9.74 -11.79 -30.15
new low income elast 4.74 4.77 4.80 4.82 4.83 4.84 4.87new high income elast 1.55 1.58 1.63 1.67 1.70 1.74 2.04
For small shocks, CES and non-homothetic results are very similar
I To a first-order approximation, elasticities irrelevant
Smaller welfare losses from import price increases in non-homothetic demand
I HHs become poorer ⇒ substitute away from imports even more
back to robustness
Changes in import prices and income-group-specific welfareRobustness to higher ηh for fixed gap between rich and poor
Robustness: ηh =
{1.54→ 3 lowest two income groups
4.73→ 6.19 highest five income groups
For HH not engaged in CB shopping:
log change import price 2.10 10 20 30 40 50 10000
Changes in welfareEV low income -0.54 -2.23 -3.69 -4.62 -5.19 -5.54 -6.06EV high income -0.56 -2.51 -4.66 -6.50 -8.05 -9.36 -15.74EV high / low income 1.02 1.12 1.26 1.41 1.55 1.69 2.60
For a given gap between rich and poor import elasticities (ηR − ηP = 3.19), relative welfarechanges smaller the higher are import elasticities
However, this change only quantitatively relevant for large import price changes
Back
Changes in import prices and income-group-specific welfareAlternative functional form relating elasticity to income
ηh = γ0 − γ1 ln(Inch)− [γ2 ln(sizeh)]⇒ estimating equation becomes Back
∆ ln
(XMh15
XDh15
)= α+ β ln(Inch) + [β1 ln(sizeh)] + εh
βOLS = −0.057 (SE = .010) changes to −0.064 including ln(sizeh)I including size has little effect (size itself is insignificant)
Excluding richest very richest income group (very few HHs), set ηmin = 1.54
Implies ηh = 1.54− 0.0570.021
ln(
Inch135,000
)= 1.54− 2.71 ln
(Inch
135,000
)I ⇒ ηh ∈ [1.54, 6.71] (compared to ηh ∈ {1.54, 4.73})
Changes in import prices and income-group-specific welfarePrices varying by HH income × size (different weights)
∆ ln
(XMh15
XDh15
)= (1− ηh)∆ ln
(PMh15
PDh15
)+ ιh15
where we assume either Back
ηh =
{ηP for Inch ≤ 42.5K
ηR for Inch > 42.5Kor ηh = γ0 − γ1 ln(Inch)
ηP − ηR γ1
Perishability
Perishable product groups (coded by hand):
I fruits
I vegetables
I fish
I bread and other bakery items
I ...
Change in log CB share in 2015 (relative to 2014) measured using
Expenditures: Transactions: Trips:
PerishabilityCross border responsiveness of CB shopping by perishability
Perishable:Expenditures Trips Transactions
(1) (2) (3)
log income -0.000 0.000 0.000[0.001] [0.001] [0.002]
log HH size 0.000 0.000 0.003[0.001] [0.002] [0.002]
log drive time -0.009∗∗∗ -0.012∗∗∗ -0.022∗∗∗[0.001] [0.001] [0.002]
Adjusted R2 0.03 0.03 0.07year 2014 2014 2014Observations 3302 3302 3302weighted Y Y Y
Nonperishable:Expenditures Trips Transactions
(1) (2) (3)
log income -0.001 -0.001 -0.001[0.002] [0.002] [0.003]
log HH size 0.002 0.003 0.002[0.002] [0.002] [0.002]
log drive time -0.020∗∗∗ -0.023∗∗∗ -0.029∗∗∗[0.002] [0.003] [0.003]
Adjusted R2 0.05 0.05 0.09year 2014 2014 2014Observations 3303 3303 3303weighted Y Y Y
Back
Debit card data on CB shopping
Debit card expenditures by Swiss on Food and supermarket, Accommodation,Restaurants, Fuel, Personal services, Entertainment, and Transport
http://monitoringconsumption.org/switzerland
Ratio of CB expenditures / Swiss expenditures ≈ 5%-7%
Debit card expenditures 2019-20Italy
Back
Debit card expenditures 2019-20Germany
Back
Debit card expenditures 2019-20Germany groceries
Back
Debit card expenditures 2019-20France
Back
Debit card expenditures 2019-20Austria
Back
Debit card expenditures 2019-20Switzerland
Back