CPI or EPI, or Both?

Household spending is a key factor in personal and family financial planning, as well as policymaking to improve people’s livelihoods. While the government’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a mainstream indicator, it often fails to accurately reflect the daily living costs of the public. CPI has limitations, such as over-emphasising non-essential goods and services (e.g.…


From personal and family financial planning to policy formulation aimed at sustained improvement in livelihoods of the community, people’s living expenses constitute a crucial factor. As described by the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong SAR Government (see Note 1), the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures the changes over time in the price levels of consumer commodities and services typically purchased by households. A rise in the CPI indicates that, with expenses remaining unchanged, the amount of commodities and services people can buy decreases. In other words, changes in the CPI reflect the inflation faced by consumers. However, given the CPI’s discrepancies in calculating people’s daily expenses, this article discusses its limitations and also proposes using the Everyday Price Index (EPI).

Blind spots in the current index

The Census and Statistics Department announces monthly CPI changes, the predominant indicator of local price variations. The public can access the data through news media. Nevertheless, with an inadequate understanding of the CPI, people may be under the misconception that the price changes they observe in their daily activities are fully reflected in the CPI readings. As a matter of fact, a feature news report last year attempted to debunk the “myth of low inflation”. A number of the interviewees in the news story projected an actual inflation rate higher than the official data released and regarded the latter as “unrealistic” (see Note 2).

Objectively speaking, there are indeed blind spots in the CPI, which make it a less-than-ideal index of daily living costs. One of the reasons is that the less frequent expenditure section has a higher weight in the composition of the index. In the 2019/20-based Composite CPI (see Note 3) prepared by the Census and Statistics Department, housing has the highest expenditure weight, exceeding 40% (see Table). Meanwhile, expenses such as food and transport are more frequent than non-daily expenditures (e.g. rent and furniture), exerting a more notable effect on people’s impression of inflation.

 

 

Table

Sections and groups of commodity/serviceComposite Consumer Price Index (CCPI)
Overall price change100
Food27.41
Housing40.25
Electricity, gas, and water2.82
Tobacco and alcoholic drinks0.49
Clothing and footwear2.42
Durable goods4.00
Miscellaneous goods3.32
Transport6.17
Miscellaneous services13.12

 

 

Take the statistical data between 2019 and 2024, for example (see Note 4). In the Composite CPI (CCPI), the year-on-year change rates of housing are lower than those of food and transport. Due to the highest expenditure weight of housing (see Figure 1), the CPI is more susceptible to price changes in housing and less sensitive to those in daily expenses such as food and transport. Consequently, the daily living costs during this period were underestimated.

 

People are generally more concerned about price rises in commodities and services but are less impressed by, or aware of, price cuts, which is a form of “memory bias”. Daily-consumed commodities and services experience not only higher frequency of expenditure but also more frequent price changes. With reference to a Polish academic study (see Note 5) on consumers’ perception of year-on-year inflation rates between 2004 and 2017, up to 99% of respondents to a questionnaire survey indicated that they were unaware of the 28-month-long deflation from July 2014 to October 2016 (see Figure 2). Of these respondents, 43% stated that prices remained unchanged and 53% were under the impression that prices increased instead of decreased (see Figure 3).

 

 

Moreover, the base effect can mislead people to overestimate inflation. For instance, a $1 price rise in lettuce selling at $10 per catty at wet markets represents a 10% hike. The low base value of daily expenses can easily cause the general public to think inflation is higher than it is. The Polish study also demonstrated that even when inflation perception more or less aligned with the actual CPI inflation, respondents still overestimated inflation by an average of 10 percentage points (see Figure 2). The author further pointed out that discrepancies between the CPI and public perception of inflation were not exclusive to Poland but were also common among EU countries, suggesting that the CPI might not reasonably estimate changes in daily living costs. To summarize the above three points, the CPI as an inflation indicator does deviate from people’s daily-life experiences, thus conveying the impression of being unrealistic.

Unveiling the EPI

In view of the fact that the CPI fails to accurately measure changes in daily living costs, the American Institute of Economic Research has introduced the EPI as a more reliable price indicator (see Note 6). Unlike the CPI, the EPI covers only daily goods and services and purchasing these items cannot be readily delayed or cancelled. These goods and services must satisfy the following two requirements. First, they must be purchased frequently (at least once a month); therefore, durable goods (e.g. furniture and household electrical appliances) are excluded. Second, their prices must not be fixed for six months or more through, for example, a contract; hence, contract-bound expenses such as rent are not covered (see Note 7). The EPI more closely reflects daily expenses and can more correctly register changes in daily living costs in comparison with the CPI. In fact, the compilation of the EPI is simple and straightforward. It can be established based on the CPI by removing items not covered by the EPI and adjusting expenditure weights accordingly.

By referencing the EPI, people should be able to more effectively plan their personal financial expenditures. Not only can the grassroots obtain comprehensive and objective data when demanding wage adjustments, but the government can also have a better grasp of people’s livelihoods. In contrast, the CPI as a price indicator has been criticized because the inflation perceived by the general public deviates significantly from the actual inflation figures.

While this can be attributed to an inadequate understanding among the public regarding the composition of inflation, it is undeniable that the CPI cannot precisely reflect daily living costs. If the government continues to rely solely on such a tool, it would inevitably give the impression that it is out of touch with reality.

By approaching this issue through policy, the Government can incorporate the EPI as a reference index for social-welfare adjustments. As for the Social Security Allowance Scheme (e.g. the Old Age Allowance) and the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, which have been pegged to the CPI, the upward adjustment of allowances has been less than ideal. Relevant policies could better benefit the public by incorporating the EPI as a more realistic indicator.

Limitations and applications of the indices

Yet, the EPI is not perfect and may overestimate the daily living costs across the community. As a matter of fact, when people see a price rise in a certain product, they naturally seek a replacement, so their actual expenses may not necessarily go up. Needless to say, spending habits vary from person to person. The EPI is for reference only and everyone should estimate changes in their expenses according to their own consumption habits.

We must emphasize that the EPI can by no means replace the CPI. It is indeed only right for the two to co-exist. While the EPI reflects changes in people’s regular daily expenses, the CPI provides an overall picture of consumer price changes in society, including both regular and irregular expenditures. The CPI is a major index widely utilized around the world. Considering the different purposes and functions of the two indices, users should be flexible when using or referencing them in various scenarios.

For instance, for the government and the academic sector, apart from recurrent expenditures, since constant monitoring of overall price changes is conducive to shaping policies and to comparing prices across regions, the CPI is a more suitable reference. When it comes to daily living costs, the EPI can more accurately reflect expense changes. For this reason, the EPI is a valuable tool for personal finance planning and a useful reference for social-welfare policy development.

Last but not least, different indices have different pros and cons. While an ideal index should be simple to use and easy to understand, users also need to grasp its uses and limitations and must not blindly accept or misuse it. Otherwise, no amount of indices can provide them with any real help.

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, given their inadequate knowledge of the CPI, members of the public often misunderstand the implications of the data. In this connection, the government should be more proactive in stepping up public education and publicity. In addition to introducing the EPI as well to account for living cost changes in response to social needs, officials should further explain to the community the uses of different indices to clear up any misconceptions.

 

Note 1: https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/data/stat_report/product/B8XX0021/att/B8XX0021.pdf

Note 2: Now Business News, 經緯線 低通脹之謎

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_12qhhUQM2Y&t=525s (interview duration: 08:36–10:32)

Note 3:https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/tc/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=B8XX0029&scode=270

In addition, starting with April 2024 as the reference month, the Census and Statistics Department updated the reference period for the CPI expenditure weights to the entire year of 2023. This update does not affect the descriptions of expenditure weights in this article, except for slight differences in the actual figures.

Note 4:

https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/data/stat_report/product/D5600001/att/D5600001B2024MM06B.xlsx

Note 5: https://link-springer-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/article/10.1007/s41549-019-00036-9

Note 6: https://www.aier.org/research/capturing-shifts-in-everyday-prices/

Note 7: https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/WP004-EPI-Polina-Vlasenko-PV.pdf

 

Dr. Stephen Y CHIU
Honorary Associate Professor in Economics
Translation
 從個人和家庭的財務規劃,到決策者制定持續改善民生的政策,市民的生活開支都是其中關鍵因素。據香港特區政府統計處描述【註1】,消費物價指數(Consumer Price Index,簡稱CPI)是一個反映市民通常購買的消費商品和服務價格水平變動的指標。當CPI上升,表示市民在開支維持不變的情況下,一般可購買的商品和服務減少。換言之,CPI的變動反映消費者所面對的通貨膨脹;但鑑於CPI在估算市民日常開支上往往出現偏差,本文除了探討其局限外,亦建議採用日常物價指數(Everyday Price Index)。

 
現行指數有盲點

 

CPI是反映本港物價變動的主流指標。政府統計處每月均會公布按月的CPI變動,市民可透過新聞媒體得悉相關數據。但是,普羅大眾對於CPI的了解每多流於片面,或會誤以為在日常生活所見的價格變動理應完全反映其中。實際上,去年一則專題新聞報道就曾為讀者拆解「低通脹之謎」。當中不少受訪者大致根據自身日常生活經驗,估算實際通脹率高於官方公布數字,並認為政府的數據「離地」【註2】

客觀而言,CPI的確存在一些盲點,因而並非一個反映日常生活成本的良好指標。原因之一是在其構成部分中,支出頻率較低的類別權數佔比較大。參考統計處以2019/20年為基期的各商品或服務組別的綜合消費物價指數(Composite Consumer Price Index,簡稱CCPI)開支權數【註3】,當中「住屋」類別的權數佔比最高,超過四成【表】;而日常所需的食品和交通等開支,往往比非日常支出(如租金、家具)更為頻繁,導致市民對通脹的觀感較易受此影響。



20192024年的數據為例【註4】CCPI中住屋的物價指數按年變動百分率大致比食品、交通為低,基於住屋的權數佔比最大【圖1】,以致CPI受住屋價格變動的影響較大,對食品、交通等日常開支的價格變動則較不敏感,而低估這段期間的日常生活成本。



一般而言,市民較在意商品和服務加價,對減價的印象則較淺或不以為意,屬記憶偏見(memory bias)的一種。日常消費的商品和服務不但支出頻繁,其價格調整亦較頻密。參考一項波蘭消費者感知按年通脹率的學術研究【註5】,由2004年至2017年間,問卷調查結果顯示,竟有近99%受訪者不為意歷時28個月(20147月至201610月)出現通縮【圖2】,當中43%受訪者認為物價不變,其餘53%更認為物價不跌反升【圖3】。

 





此外,因基數效應(base effect)作祟,市民容易高估通脹。日常開支的基數較小,例如街市101斤的生菜僅加價1元,亦即10%升幅,容易令市民高估通脹。上述研究同時發現,即使受訪者感知通脹(inflation perception)的方向與實際CPI通脹大致相同,卻平均高估10個百分點【圖2】。作者進一步指出CPI與波蘭市民對通脹感受有所差距,與其他歐盟國情況相似,可見並非個別地區獨有,亦反映CPI不能準確估算日常生活成本的變動。綜合以上3點,CPI作為通脹的指標確實與市民日常生活體驗頗有出入,難免予人「離地」之感。

 
日常物價指數背後

 

有鑑於CPI未能準確衡量日常生活成本水平變動,美國經濟研究所(American Institute of Economic Research)引入並編製日常物價指數(EPI),作為更可靠的指標【註6】。與CPI不同的是,EPI只涵蓋一些日常購買,且無法輕易延後或放棄購買的商品和服務。EPI統計的商品和服務價格必須符合兩項原則:一、須是大眾恒常購買的(至少每月1次),不包括耐用物品(如家具、家電)。二、其價格不能透過合約等方式固定6個月或以上,受合約規範的租金等支出亦因而不被EPI計算在內【註7】EPI更貼近日常生活的支出,比CPI更能準確反映日常生活成本的變動。事實上,EPI的編製方式簡單直接,只需在編製CPI的基礎上,將EPI不涵蓋的項目剔除,並調整相應的開支權數即可。

透過參考EPI,相信普羅市民都可更有效地規劃個人財務支出,而基層市民在爭取工資調整的過程中,得以掌握更充分和客觀的理據;政府亦可從EPI更了解民生。當前CPI作為物價指標為人詬病,在於市民心目中的「通脹」與實際通脹數字有極大落差。

雖然這可歸咎於市民對通脹的組成認識不足,但CPI未能準確反映日常生活成本同樣是毋庸置疑的。若政府只依賴此一工具,難免予人「不食人間煙火」的印象。

從政策着手,政府可將EPI納入福利調整的參考指標。目前恒常實施的公共福利金計劃,如高齡津貼(生果金)及綜合社會保障援助(綜援),因一直與CPI掛鈎,津貼金額的調整幅度未達預期。EPI作為更「貼地」的指標,有關政策反而能收利民之效。

 
指數的局限與運用

 

當然,EPI並非完美,可能高估市民的生活成本。在日常生活中,市民見到部分商品加價,自會尋求替代品,故實際開支不一定增加。再者,不同人的消費習慣各有不同,EPI只供參考,市民仍須因應個人的消費習慣以估算開支變動。

另外,筆者必須強調EPI不能取代CPI,兩者應該並存。EPI是反映民眾日常生活恒常開支變動的指標,CPI則反映社會整體(包括恒常與非恒常)的消費物價變動,是世界各地主流使用的重要指標之一。由於兩個指標所達致的目的與作用不同,使用者在不同情況下應靈活運用及參考兩項指標。

例如,對政府及學者而言,除恒常開支外,定期了解整體物價變動有助制定政策,以及作為比較各地物價的基礎,因此CPI在此方面更為合適。然而,若論市民的日常生活成本方面,EPI則較準確地反映相關開支的變動,除了有利大眾規劃個人財務,對制定社會福利政策亦具參考價值。

最後,不同指標各有利弊,理想的指標固然應該簡單易明,而使用者亦有責任了解指標的用途和限制,不能盲目甚或錯誤使用,否則即使設立千千萬萬種指標,也會無濟於事。

正如本文開端所言,市民對CPI認識不深,以致容易誤解數據的含義。政府在相關教育和宣傳應更主動,除了因應社會需要另設反映生活成本變動的EPI外,亦須加強向公眾講解不同指標的用途,以消除誤解。

 

【註1】: https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/data/stat_report/product/B8XX0021/att/B8XX0021.pdf
【註2】: Now財經新聞,《經緯線》低通脹之謎https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_12qhhUQM2Y&t=525s(訪問時段:08:3610:32
【註3】: https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/tc/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=B8XX0029&scode=270此外,自20244月的統計月份開始,統計處已更新消費物價指數開支權數的參照期至2023年全年。該次更新的開支權數,除實際數字有微細的差異外,並不影響本文對開支權數的描述。
【註4】: https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/data/stat_report/product/D5600001/att/D5600001B2024MM06B.xlsx
【註5】: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41549-019-00036-9
【註6】: https://www.aier.org/research/capturing-shifts-in-everyday-prices/
【註7】: https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/WP004-EPI-Polina-Vlasenko-PV.pdf


 

趙耀華博士
港大經管學院經濟學榮譽副教授


劉彥彰先生
港大經管學院本科生


吳兆康先生
港大經管學院畢業生


 

(本文同時於二零二四年九月十一日載於《信報》「龍虎山下」專欄)