In this study, we assess how the increase in the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) in July 2016 affected household spending on various types of consumption. The increase was more than $2,000 per child per year for most recipient households, so it represented a very large increase in transfers to households with children. Further, because the CCB has a very low tax-back rate, the policy change was similar to raising the rate in a universal basic income scheme.
We assess the effect of the policy change on a measure of overall consumption, and its seven constituent categories: clothing, food, health care, household operation, recreation, shelter, and transportation. We focus on households whose income is below the median income (as this is the principal policy target), and evaluate effects for renters and owners separately. We find statistically significant effects of the policy change only for spending on clothing, food, and shelter, and these arise only for rental-tenure households.
We find that rental-tenure households with children below the median income increased their annual consumption by roughly $3,000 in response to the CCB increase of roughly $4,300 for these households. With average annual consumption around $30,000, this represents an increase in consumption of roughly 10% for these households. They increased spending on food by roughly $700, and on shelter by nearly $1,400. They increased spending on clothing by roughly $300, but only on children’s clothing and not on adult clothing. We find mild evidence that households with more children responded differently to those with fewer children, in particular, that shelter spending rose by much more for the former households.
That the policy changed increased spending on the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing suggests that it achieved some measure of success in improving the consumption of lower-income households with children. The lion’s share of the increased spending was allocated to increased shelter spending for rental-tenure households. We find weak evidence that these households moved after the policy change. But given the existing evidence that low-income housing supply may be quite inelastic, it is possible that rent price increases ate up this increased spending. More research on this question, using different data, is needed.
Read paper