‘The effect of the period of economic stagnation on
Dutch households’
By Renzo van Dijk
MSc thesis Management, Economics and Consumer studies
R.J.A.M. van Dijk
930301211060
Economics of Consumers and Households
ECH-80433
29-06-2016
First examiner: Dr. J.A.C. van Ophem (Wageningen University)
Second examiner: Prof. Dr. G Antonides (Wageningen University)
Summary
In this thesis, the effect of the period of economic stagnation on the Dutch households was analysed.
This was done by looking at their consumption behaviour, borrowing behaviour and saving
behaviour. The economic stagnation caused problems for certain Dutch households and their coping
strategy was compared to the literature that was already written about crises, economizing and
saving behaviour. 111 Dutch respondents answered the Qualtrics questionnaire, answering questions
about their own situation, their behaviour and how the period of economic stagnation has affected
them. From the questionnaire and literature, the main question and sub-questions could be
answered. Households economized on luxury goods and services, such as vacations, days out and
going out for dinner. How much people economized was partly determined by the monthly income
and total debt a household had. 36 percent of all respondents saved less because of the economic
stagnation, although there is also a part that actually saved more. Whether people saved less or not
is affected by the financial management of households and correlates with the level of
economization. Households did not borrow more money than before the crisis. In the end, these
possible changes in behaviour still lead people to being happier than five years ago, but it does not
affect their health. The most important determinants with regard to the effects of the economic
stagnation were net income and financial competencies, even though these factors did not affect all
dependent variables.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Contents
{ TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u }
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
1. Introduction
Since the year 2008, all around the world countries have been hit by the financial crisis. Before that,
in the early 2000’s, economic growth was the standard and countries were prospering. The inflation
was low in most countries, international trade became the standard and financial flows expanded
globally. Also, people were eager to spend their money, because they had no concerns about
whether they could lose their jobs or get into financial problems (Obstfeld et al., 2009). Deaton
(2013) confirms this and adds that people are now afraid to buy a new house, because they do not
expect that they can actually sell their old one.
However, there were three problems that gradually became worse during this time of prosperity.
Firstly, the values of real estate properties were rising very quickly, which was also the case in Europe
and the USA. Second, some countries had a high current account deficit, which means countries
imported more than they exported. There were also countries that had the opposite, which means
they imported a lot less than they exported. Lastly, there was way too much leverage used within
companies around the world (Obstfeld et al., 2009). This involved investing in companies with
borrowed money, with the expectation that the return on investment would be big enough to cover
the costs (Brigham et al., 2011). This also had to do with the interest rates that were very low,
because policy making was done too easy (Taylor et al., 2009).
These three reasons led to a lot of problems when they were finally acknowledged. Budget cuts were
implemented, companies changed their strategies regarding hiring new personnel and many other
actions were taken as a consequence of the crisis. It also became hard to get a mortgage at the bank,
because nobody trusted the real estate market anymore. Next to this material damage, there is also
a lot of emotional damage that has been caused by the financial crisis. This will be discussed later in
this thesis. To give an insight in how Dutch households dealt with possible problems, such as
unemployment, this thesis analyses and compares the situation at this moment and the situation as
it was during the last few years.
This thesis will give an insight in how the situation has changed for Dutch households over the past
few years. Especially with actual economic developments, this can give a good indication of if
macroeconomic problems affect individual households. Last year, the big investigation about the so
called Panama Papers has started, which at its turn may affect households as well. People might be
looking to avoid tax payment, spend differently or change jobs due to this ‘example’.
Also, there are a lot of different opinions on whether the (Dutch) economy is improving again or if
the economic stagnation is still continuing. The Dutch housing market has already grown a lot over
the last few months, according to different Dutch financial magazines and governmental agencies.
This might be an indication of a growing economy, although the unemployment rate still remains a
lot higher than before the period of economic stagnation. Globally speaking, the economy is
recovering slower than expected (Worldbank, 2016), which also affects the Dutch economy and
households in the end. Less growth often means less consumption and less risky behaviour.
This thesis will focus on Dutch households, not addressing the macroeconomic causes and
consequences of the period of economic stagnation. Analyses will be made about behavioural
changes of households due to these macroeconomic causes. The main literature that will be used is
previously done empirical research. There is a lot of information about why people borrow money,
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
how consumption patterns are determined and what drives people to save money or not. However,
to make the thesis more empirical and actual, most of the used literature will be about actual
consequences of the crisis, actual behavioural changes people have applied and comparisons
between situations in different countries.
The main question that will be dealt with in this thesis is: ‘How has the behaviour of households
changed due to the period of economic stagnation that started in 2008?’ This question can be divided
into five different sub-questions:
1. ‘How has the consumption behaviour of Dutch households changed since the start of the
period of economic stagnation in 2008?’
2. ‘How has the borrowing behaviour of Dutch households changed since the start of the period
of economic stagnation in 2008?’
3. ‘How has the saving behaviour of Dutch households changed since the start of the period of
economic stagnation in 2008?’
4. ‘Has the period of economic stagnation had any effect on the health of Dutch households?’
5. ‘How did the period of economic stagnation affect the happiness of the Dutch households?’
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Financial situation of the Netherlands
Over the years, a lot has changed in the Netherlands with regard to economics and the situation of
consumers and households. This part will be about Appendix 1 , a table that shows data about the
Netherlands from the years 2000 to 2014. Described topics vary from macro-economic statistics to
household characteristics and their changes over the years.
Firstly, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is one of the more frequently used factors to analyse how
a country is doing. In 2000, Dutch GDP was 448.1 billion euro’s. This has steadily risen over the years
to 638.2 billion at the beginning of the period of economic stagnation in 2008. In 2009, the GDP was
lower than the year before for the first time in years. After this, it kept on growing steadily to 662.8
billion in 2014 (CBS, 2015).
Of course, an increasing GDP is not necessarily good for a country. If a country is economically
growing is closely related to the inflation rate. In 2000 this rate was 2.6 percent. After this, a peak in
inflation came; in 2001 the inflation rate was 4.5 percent. This was probably caused by the
introduction of the euro in the Netherlands. At the start of the crisis the number had decreased and
increased again to 2.5 percent. During the years after 2008 the number decreased to 1.2 percent,
then rose to 2.5 percent in 2013 to decrease again to the lowest in years in 2014, 1.0 percent (CBS,
2015).
These two statistics are related to the disposable income per household, although it differs in
variation. Starting with 25 300 euro’s in 2000, it has slowly risen to 33 100 in 2008. After this, it was
actually more or less constant for 5 years. In the year 2014, it had risen up to 34 200 euro’s. The
disposable income at its turn is related to the purchasing power of households. In 2001, the
purchasing power rose by 5.2 percent. This is a lot, compared to the years that follow. Still it kept on
rising until the year 2010 (except for a minor decrease in 2005 of 0.2 percent), in which the
purchasing power started to decrease, compared to the year before. 2014 was the first year it
increased again. Also, the percentage of people that live below the low-income line has decreased
from 2000 to 2008, but rose since that year. It was at 9.7 percent in 2013, which is comparable to the
year 2000 and 2001. Lastly, although incomes have risen, the amount of people that went on holiday
at least once a year has remained fairly constant. This number has varied between 79.2 percent and
81.9 percent, which means Dutch consumers have not adjusted their holiday behaviour that much
(CBS, 2015). Still, it is possible that people spent less money on holidays or that holidays became
cheaper.
When looking at the housing market, one can see that the amount of times the rent of a house went
up fluctuates over the years. Percentages rose from 2.6 percent in 2000 to 3.2 percent in 2003 and
then decreased to 1.9 percent at the beginning of the period of economic stagnation. It then
fluctuated even more, with 2.8 percent in 2009, 1.6 percent in 2010 to 4.4 percent in 2014. The
prices of houses decreased. With 2010 as reference point, the houses decreased every year after that
year and they were at 86.1 in 2014. This is comparable to house prices in 2002, when the
Netherlands also faced somewhat troubles economic times (CBS, 2015).
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Analysing the percentage of absence because of illness, one can see that people started to feel the
pressure economic stagnation could have on their employers. The percentage of people that said
they were sick decreased constantly over time, from 5.5 percent in 2000 to 3.8 percent in 2014 (CBS,
2015). This could be because people considered going to work even though they were sick, because
they knew their job security was already decreasing due to the period of economic stagnation.
One of the statistics that has increased over the year constantly is the total private savings Dutch
households had together. In 2014 this was 325.3 billion euros, more than double the amount of
2000. This is remarkable, since the interest rates for saving have also decreased quite constantly over
the last few years. Although it kept on rising, what should be mentioned is that the difference
between 2013 and 2014 is a lot lower compared to all previous years (CBS, 2015).
2.2 Financial management of households
When facing a crisis, households have a certain capacity in regard to managing their own financial
situation. The Dutch Institute for Budgeting (NIBUD) uses the term financial management for this and
it is defined as: “People are financially self-reliant if they can make thought-out choices and make
sure their finances are in balance, in both long term and short term” (NIBUD, 2015). The NIBUD did a
research in 2015 about how households make ends meet and how they put their financial skills into
practice. In this part, the research about Dutch households will be discussed and relevant things will
be elaborated on.
Firstly, the NIBUD investigated how people respond to questions about whether they could make
ends meet. Around 45 percent answered that they have a hard time doing this, from which 8 percent
had a very hard time paying everything they had to pay. This number is comparable to the situation
in 2012, when the previous research was done. This is considerably higher than in 2009, when only
37 percent of people had financial problems (Madern et al., 2012). A distinction can be made
between certain groups who are above this average of 45 percent and groups that are below it.
People that are older than 45 years old have a harder time making ends meet (52 percent) and this is
also the case for single parents without and with children (56 percent and 67 percent respectively).
Lastly, education plays a role in how people perform financially. Among lower educated people 58
percent had financial problems and among middle-educated people this number was 58 percent. On
the other hand there are people that have an easy time making ends meet. On average, 55 percent
of people say they have a fairly easy to very easy time paying what they have to. This especially
applies to higher educated people (66 percent), couples without children (65 percent) young people
between 18 and 34 years old (62 percent) and people older than 65 (64 percent) . In Appendix 3
reasons are stated which cause consumers to have a hard time paying their bills (van der Schors et
al., 2015).
The main reasons why people cannot make ends meet are displayed in Appendix 3. The reason that
is mentioned the most is simply that households spend more, although the income stays the same
(40 percent). The second and third most mentioned reasons are related to this; 38 percent stated
their income was too low and 35 percent said their fixed costs were too high and thus caused
problems making ends meet. Other reasons are diseases (with higher costs as a consequence), a loss
of subsidies due to government measures and spending more than is actually possible (van der
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Schors et al., 2015). This last reason is closely related to financial competencies and will be further
discussed later in this chapter.
Another step in analysing financial management of household is determining if people have so called
financial competencies. These competencies are separated into three categories. The first category is
the mapping of one’s financial situation. This involves checking their bank account balance weekly,
keeping up with financial administration and keeping up with expenditures every year. The second
competency is called spending responsibly. This has to do with spending behaviour, not having
paying problems and not buying products when one does not have money for it at the moment. The
last competency is mentioned in the article of van der Schors (2015) as looking ahead. This is related
to borrowing behaviour, saving behaviour and the fact if someone has money on their savings
account or not. In Figure 1 one can see how many competencies people have. In Appendix 4, the
relation between the competencies and the ability to make ends meet can be found. In that table in
Appendix 4 it is clear that the more competencies one lacks, the harder this person it finds to make
ends meet. What also stands out is that people with two of the three competencies have a higher
percentage in relation to having an easy time making ends meet, 44 percent against 26 percent in
2012. Also, in 2015 the percentage of people without one of the competencies and with a hard time
making ends meet is lower than the people with one of the competencies (van der Schors et al.,
2015).
The results of this research of van der Schors (2015) match with what Bucher-Koenen (2014) found
for Germany. The latter said that individuals that do not have a lot of financial knowledge are not
likely to lose a lot of money because of the economic stagnation. On the other hand, these financially
less educated people often sold assets of which the value had dropped, which caused their losses to
be permanent. Other people kept their assets, which could then increase in value again after a
certain period of time. Another example of behavioural characteristics of higher financial knowledge
is the relation of this knowledge to participation in the stock market. Bucher-Koenen (2014) states
this is because “individuals with better cognitive abilities and knowledge regarding financial markets
face lower cost of acquiring information about investment opportunities, which reduces their
participation cost.” This can count as a buffer to fall back on in harder financial times.
Financial
competencies in 2012
14%
36%
Financial
competencies in 2015
None of the
competencies
19%
31%
1 of the 3
competencies
2 of the 3
competencies
All
competencies
17%
36%
None of the
competencies
14%
1 of the 3
competencies
33%
2 of the 3
competencies
All
competencies
Figure 1: Change in competencies (van der Schors et al.,
2015).
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
When households do not know certain things with regard to financial management, there are several
ways to look for information. Most people do this by visiting non-governmental internet websites
(41%) or governmental websites (29%). The rest asks friends or family, hires a financial advisor or
asks other organizations within their neighbourhood. These ways have a downside, because 20
percent of Dutch households says there is too much information online or they do not know when
information is reliable.
Over the years, there have been some changes with regard to the amount of people having a hard
time making ends meet. This number changed from 54 percent in 2005, 37 percent in 2009 to 45
percent in 2012 and 2015. This difference is much bigger when comparing the ability to make ends
meet between working people and welfare recipients. In 2005, 48 percent of working people had a
hard time making ends meet, compared to 36 percent in 2015. For the welfare recipients, these
numbers were 61 percent and 76 percent respectively. This number stayed more or less the same for
retired people (van der Schors et al., 2015).
The amount of households that regularly keep up with their administration rose slightly, from 53
percent to 58 percent. With regards to expenditures, not a lot has changed. The numbers for keeping
up with how much money goes out stayed about the same. This is also the case for making budgets.
In 2005, 25 percent made a budget yearly, in 2009 this was 21 percent and in 2015 27 percent (van
der Schors et al., 2015).
Managing a household’s financial situation is one thing, but of course this is put into practice by the
purchasing behaviour of a household. This starts with the simple things like grocery shopping. More
than half of the interviewed consumers say they make a shopping list before they go to the
supermarket. This can make sure they only buy the things that are on the list, instead of impulse
buying more products than they wanted or needed beforehand. 47 percent says this solution works
for them and that they do not buy more than they should (van der Schors et al., 2015). Also, 69
percent knows in which months they have more to spend than normally and when they can spend
less than normally. This is related to the level of financial management, since 79 percent of people
that make a budget know what to spend in which months, whereas only 62 percent of people that do
not make a budget know this (van der Schors et al., 2015). The contradicting part of this fact is that
consumers that have a hard time making ends meet do not make a shopping list more often.
Mullainathan (2014) stated that people in monetary problems often have a hard time planning
ahead. This is what probably causes this contradiction.
When analysing bigger expenses, so excluding the daily groceries, other conclusions can be drawn.
88 percent of all respondents looks up prices of products in other shops or websites before buying
them. This varies from sometimes looking it up to always looking at other websites before purchase.
In this way, people also try to get the same product while it is on sale. Also, before purchase of an
expensive product, 95 percent of people looks into their own financial situation if the purchase is
realistic and if they can actually afford it. Lastly, 70 percent of all respondents determine what
requirements they demand of a product before buying it (van der Schors et al., 2015).
Mental budgeting
People make budgets for themselves. They create ideas in their head about which money they will
spend on which product or service and adjust their behaviour to this budget (Heath et al., 1996). For
example, people that want to buy a new TV, but then find out they do not have enough money at
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
that moment can reallocate money from different mental accounts. Still, most of the times they will
not do this, because of the budgets they made for themselves. Because, as Heath (1996) states,
“when a particular budget is depleted, they resist further expenses on items in that category”.
This theory also states that although people actually want to consume more goods in a certain
account, they still economize because they want to keep within their budget. Considering they often
do have enough money to be able to buy desired products, this might be irrational. This is confirmed
by Antonides (2011), who found that 28 percent of the respondents of his research reserve money
for different expenses like food, clothing and transportation. Furthermore, 25 percent actually limits
themselves to not spending more than a fixed amount of money on these categories and if they
exceed spendings on one category, they economize on other (Antonides, 2011). The mental
budgeting theory possibly applies to this research, because it analyses why some people borrow
money and overconsume or save at the same time.
Arrears
Arrears are payments that should have been done but where people did not have enough money at
the time to actually pay. This is one of the biggest problems when analysing financial management of
households. The crisis has led to an increase in arrears regarding multiple categories. One of the
problems that occur most often is paying a bill too late (26 percent of respondents had this one or
more times over the last 12 months). This also relates to the payment reminders, which 22 percent
of all people received over the last 12 months. The third most occurring problem is not being able to
withdraw money, this happened to 18 percent (van der Schors et al., 2015). Compared to the article
of Madern (2012), the numbers have decreased slightly, with respectively 31, 25 and 18 percent.
Concerning these problems, the NIBUD distinguished two categories regarding payment problems.
The light problem category involves problems like an occasional rent arrear, not being able to
withdraw money and receiving fines for paying too late. The heavier problem category involves
salary that is being taken, an energy cut-off because of paying too late and on a regular basis paying
ones rent or mortgage too late. In the Netherlands, 12 percent falls under the first category of light
payment problems and 10 percent has heavier payment problems (van der Schors et al., 2015). Over
the years, the number of people paying bills too late or not being able to withdraw money from their
account stayed more or less the same. The thing that stands out, is that 2012 is the years in which
people had most problems, whereas it has already decreased in 2015 (van der Schors et al., 2015).
Overdraft
According to Hoeve (2011), being in overdraft is not necessarily a bad thing. Being overdrawn simply
means that at the moment of purchase, the price of the good that is being purchased is higher than
the amount of money on one’s bank account. In the Netherlands, 49 percent of all households was in
overdraft at least one time in 2014. Also, 17 percent was in overdraft monthly and 6 percent weekly
or even always (van der Schors et al., 2015). This has not changed a lot over the years of the crisis. In
2012, 50 percent of all households was in overdraft at the moment of the research and in 2015 this
was 51 percent. A contradicting fact is that 65 percent of all respondents of van der Schors (2015)
said they sometimes are in overdraft while they also have money on their savings account. This can
be explained by mental budgeting, which causes people to behave according to their perceived
budget (Heath et al., 1996). Over the last years, the percentage of people never being in overdraft
has risen constantly, from 36 percent in 2005, 47 percent in 2009, 50 percent in 2012 to 51 percent
in 2015 (van der Schors et al., 2015).
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Perceived financial situation
In 2013, there were more than 700000 people who were in so called problematic debt. Next to that,
there are that over one million people have a serious risk of getting these problematic debts. These
estimations were made based on a household with more than two people in it and they were based
on the most positive data available at the time (Jungmann, 2014). These problematic debts involve
debts which a person cannot deal with financially.
This, together with before mentioned situations about arrears and overdraft, causes the Dutch
population to have become more negative. In January 2008, 81 percent of the population was
satisfied with the way it was going financially. Five and a half years later, in July 2013, this number
had decreased to a mere 47 percent. This number has especially dropped rapidly since 2011. In 2008,
only 28 percent of people expected the Dutch economy to get worse over the next few years. In
2013, this number had already risen to 55 percent (Klok, 2015).
More than half of the population, 62 percent, said the crisis caused some kind of problems to them.
This number is high, especially when taking into regard that 70 percent of people still said they were
satisfied with their income at the time. Although, this can relate to the fact that when the people
around you get hit by the crisis harder than you do yourself, you perceive yourself to be happier
about your own income (Bijl et al., 2013).
2.3 Saving behaviour
In this section, changes in behaviour with regard to saving money will be analysed. The definition of
saving that will be used is: ‘Saving is an activity in which resources are used in the current period and
yield satisfaction in future periods’ (Bryant, 2006). This means that one consumes money at a certain
period of time, with the thought of actually using the money at a later stage.
Households generally save money for specific reasons. These reasons can vary from child support
money, to money for buying a house at a later stage or to simply insure themselves against any
economic, political or biological risks. In general, the saving behaviour of people has shifted to the
focus on saving for when people are old. Private savings of a household can also be an important
factor when analysing economic security and well-being (Schunk, 2009). The NIBUD has done a
research about the saving behaviour of Dutch households, which will be analysed here.
Motives for saving can be divided into three categories. The first one is life-cycle motives, which are
related to the changes in income and expenditures one suffers during different stages in his life. This
involves saving for marriage, retirement and children’s education. The second one is precautionary
motives. These motives relate to uncertainty about one’s future financial situation with regard to
income and expenses. For example, one can save for potential unemployment, accidents or illness. It
also applies to smaller unexpected expenses, such as a stolen bike or broken glasses. The last
category of reasons is the so called bequest motive, which is about giving assets to one’s children or
other family members by so called inter vivos transfers. Inter vivos is the transferring or gift giving
during a person’s life to another person under the subject of trust (Horioka et al., 1997).
As can be seen in Figure 2, saving per motive differs a lot with regard to the moment in one’s life.
Retirement saving is more or less the most constant saving motive. People save their whole life to
have enough money once they reach the retirement age. Of course, this gradually rises over the
years as retirement age gets closer. Education is something people save for a lot during the first ‘half’
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
of their life, from the age of 20 up until the age of around 55. At that age, most children will have
finished studying so the educational costs will have decreased a lot. The same counts for housing,
since once people have enough money saved for their own house, saving will not be necessary
anymore. Marriage has a saving peak at the age of 50-54. This means that at that age, the
accumulated savings for this purpose are highest. Lastly, leisure is a motive where people save a
relatively small amount of money for. Still, the motive is constant since people spend money on
leisure throughout their entire lives.
Figure 2: Household savings per motive over the years (Horioka et al., 1997)
Standard economic models say that consumers, who are generally risk-averse and face some
uncertainty about what the rest of their life will bring, should value saving money annually. This can
help them in assuring they have money at a later stage in life. In practice, this is not the case at all
(Brown et al., 2008). Households tend to suffer with decisions with regard to saving. They have to
make choices on whether to spend money on expenses or to cut down on expenses and increase the
savings for later (Karlsson et al., 2004). Also, how much is saved is related to which stage of the lifecycle the household is in (Deaton, 1997). In general people save money until they retire, after which
their savings are depleted. Still, even during retirement they keep on saving, although their
consumption pattern changes (Alessie et al., 1999).
In the Netherlands, 15 percent of households does not have a savings account at all. These
households more often have a hard time making ends meet, are unemployed more often and
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
generally have a lower income than households that do have a savings account. Next to this, 81
percent of Dutch households saves money. There are three possible types of saving. The first is
contractual saving, which means saving through pensions or life insurances for example. Second,
there is discretionary saving, which means saving as a genuine decision. In practice, this means
setting money aside for big expenses. The last type of saving is residual saving, which is simply the
money that is resided in ones account after a certain period of time. Expenses do not always exceed
income, so this varies per period of time (Abbott et al., 2000). Most of the households put away a
monthly amount of money, but some only save when they still have money left at the end of the
month. In general, people with a partner save more often than people without a partner, 84 percent
and 73 percent respectively (van der Schors et al., 2015).
Of course, there are different possible reasons for households not to save money. This can vary from
actually needing the money to make ends meet (57%), not having enough money to save (49%) and
simply preferring to spend the money rather than saving it (6%). Also, 6 percent says they think
interest is not high enough to make it attractive to save (in this research, multiple answers were
possible). In Appendix 5, one can see how many percent of the Dutch households save and how
much money they have in their savings account. The percentage of people never saving money has
not changed over the years. In 2005, this percentage was 20 percent and in 2015 it still is. Only in
2009, it suddenly rose to 25 percent (van der Schors et al., 2015).
Comparing the situation in the Netherlands to the one in the United States, one can see quite some
differences. Whereas US private savings rate decreased between the 80’s and the early part of the
21st century, Dutch people continued saving. The amount of people in the US without saved money is
almost twice as high as in the Netherlands. Also, the number of households with debt and the
amount of these private debts have increased over the last years (Fisher, 2010). This is, at its turn,
comparable to the situation in the Netherlands (as described before).
The life-cycle model, made by Modigliani (1954; 1963) can also be used to explain saving behaviour.
In this model, households smooth their consumption during the life cycle, they save before they
retire and fall back on the saved money during their retirement. By saving because of expected
problems, the model is confirmed and expanded. People do not only save money for later, they also
anticipate on upcoming (possibly unknown) events that might cause a drop in income or a rise in
costs (Lusardi, 1998).
These possibly unknown events cause uncertainty among households. General theories agree on the
theory that economic uncertainty increases saving behaviour, but uncertainty also causes other
behaviour. Even small amounts of uncertainty can stop an individual from borrowing money. Also,
especially when related to a crisis, uncertainty may cause individuals to see their expected future
income as being a lot lower than what it actually will be. Uncertainty-related saving behaviour is thus
associated with future variables, where people with more uncertainty and higher possible variance in
income will probably save more (Lusardi, 1998).
Lastly, most common factors that are related to saving behaviour are demographical characteristics
and household wealth. Lusardi (1998) stated that age, gender, race, marital status and education are
also related. Households in which people are married but live without children generally save the
most money, whereas single parents tend to save the least. Logically, people with a higher income
and a higher wealth tend to save more.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
2.4 Borrowing behaviour
According to Weinberg (2006), borrowing can be seen as both ‘credit’ and ‘debt’. This is an important
difference, because the reason behind the borrowing behaviour differs a lot. Credit refers to the
situation in which someone wants to achieve a certain level of consumption. He or she then has
access to money, made available by a lender. Debt is a more negative form of borrowing behaviour
and is defined as the amount of money someone owes to another party. Debt often causes more
stress for the indebted people or households (Weinberg, 2006).
Over the past decades, the amount of debt in relation to a households disposable income has grown
steadily. In the United States, it rose from around 35 percent in 1952 to 60 percent in 1970, with
numbers having risen to 108 percent in the year 2004. Most of this debt is made up by the mortgages
households have on their homes, which is discussed in the following section. The number of people
that actually owned their house increased a lot, which explains this big increase in mortgages. The
other part is related to the increase in borrowing for consumption (Weinberg, 2006). The use of
credit has been growing in all income groups, but it increased the most in the middle and lower
income households.
As can be seen in Appendix 6, there are a lot of different possible ways to loan money. This can be in
the form of a debt you have to someone or something, or an actual loan at a bank or investment
firm. As can be seen in the Appendix, not a lot has changed since 2012. Borrowing and saving
combined is also something that has been done a lot. These loans then are found acceptable,
because then there is still enough money to pay all the constant expenditures. Often these loans
involve big expenses like a new car or even a new house. This is the case in 31 percent. Other
expenses which are often reason to get a loan are redeeming other loans (17%), rebuilding ones
house (14%), purchase of white goods (12%) and study expenses (9%). In 2005, 32 percent of
households had loans from a bank, family members or investment firms. This decreased to 24
percent in 2009 and stayed that way up until now (van der Schors et al., 2015).
In Appendix 6 can be seen that not a lot has changed since 2012. The amount of people that are in
overdraft has decreased with two percent, just like the amount of people that had a loan from a bank
or investment firm. College debt has gone up two percent, which can also mean that the economy is
recovering and people want to study again. There are also two percent less loans from family and
friend and less repayment schedules. In general, one can say that the situation has improved in the
years between 2012 and 2015 (van der Schors et al., 2015).
Brown (2015) found that the consequence of borrowing too much money can make a household very
vulnerable. This vulnerability relates to possible reductions in the household’s income or rising
interest rates, which would cause sudden problems with more debts. Especially the borrowing
households with an already low income are vulnerable to job loss, a drop in salary, divorces or a
sudden increase in costs because of the birth of a child.
Mortgages
Even if there would not be a crisis, households would probably still have problems financing their
ideal house. This is simply because not a lot of households have enough money to put in such a big
investment (Schilder et al., 2013). This is why most households, especially in the Netherlands, have
mortgages to still be able to buy a house. Since the start of the period of economic stagnation,
buying a house in the Netherlands has become even more difficult. The income-mortgage ratio has
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
been changed, which means that, compared to the situation before the economic stagnation, a
higher income is needed for the same mortgage. Also, the amount of amortization which has to be
paid monthly or yearly has risen. As can be seen in Figure 2 below, the time it takes to sell one’s
house (the blue line) has increase, just as the amount of houses on the market at a specific moment
in time (the red line) (Schilder et al., 2013). In Figure 2, the year 2000 has been indexed at 100.
Figure 3: House market situation in the Netherlands over the years (Schilder et al., 2013)
Especially in the Netherlands the ratio of household debt to gross disposable income is fairly high
when compared to the rest of Europe. One would assume that this is not a good sign and that this
causes a lot of people to have problems with paying their mortgage. This is not the case, because
these so called ‘default rates’ are exceptionally low in the Netherlands. Comparing these numbers
with the UK for example, shows that in the UK the number of mortgaged houses that is actually
possessed by its owners has decreased to the level of below the last depth in the housing market,
which was in the early 1990’s. Still, the Dutch government and banks admit the amount of mortgages
in the Netherlands makes the Dutch financial system slightly vulnerable (Mak, 2015).
Around thirty percent of total Dutch mortgages are ‘under water’, which means that the actual value
of the house is lower than the value on which their mortgage is based. A consequence of this is that
households are vulnerable to unexpected financial problems, like sudden lower incomes or divorces.
If this happens, selling the house is an option, but because they are under water it becomes a lot less
attractive. Some aspects of the Dutch financial system help control this vulnerability. Interest on
mortgage loans lets households with a mortgage loan pay less taxes. Together with a good social
benefits system and a fairly low unemployment rate this makes Dutch households less vulnerable to
financial problems (Mak, 2015).
2.5 Consumption behaviour
This paragraph is about the change in consumption behaviour due to the crisis. The definition of
consumption that will be used is: ‘Consumption is an activity in which goods are purchased and yield
satisfaction in the current period’ (Bryant, 2006). There have not been a lot of researches that looked
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
into the consequences of the recent period of economic stagnation for households in the
Netherlands. In other countries there have been these kinds of analyses.
As can be seen in Figure 4, Dutch consumers have had a fluctuating amount of faith in the Dutch
economy over the last few years. In 2007, about a year before the start of the period of economic
stagnation, the consumers were very positive. After banks started getting problems and the term
‘financial crisis’ was commonly used in Europe, the consumer trust decreased rapidly. Still, after 2013
the trust is starting to rise again, which might mean that the Dutch economy is growing again.
Figure 4: Consumer confidence in the Netherlands in the years 2000-2016 (CBS, 2016)
The article of Aytaç (2014) about Turkey has a lot of numbers to support the statement that the
financial crisis changed the behaviour of Turkish people. For example, the percentage of husbands
that worked more than 1 job was 12.1 percent. From this 12.1 percent, 79.8 percent of the
households used this strategy due to the economic stagnation. The percentage of children that
started to work for money was 3.9 percent, from which 88.6 percent only did this due to the period
of economic stagnation. In relation to housing, of the 13.3 percent of people that moved to cheaper
housing in given period of time, 71.3 percent did this because of the economic stagnation (Aytaç et
al., 2014). In Appendix 2, coping strategies and the percentage of households using these strategies
due to the economic stagnation can be seen.
One can imagine that the influence of the financial crisis on consumption behaviour is very big, since
between half and two-thirds of the total gross domestic product (GDP) is related to the consumption
that households do (Campos et al., 2015). During economic stagnation, there obviously are people
that are directly affected by the consequences of the crisis by getting unemployed or by dropping
wages (Kaytaz et al., 2014). Still, most households remain unaffected because the main employer
often keeps his job. Thus, the household still have the major part of its income to make ends meet
and stays out of the relatively bigger problems. Campos (2015) analysed whether households who
are not directly affected by the rising unemployment rate still adjust their consumption pattern and
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
if this is the case, how they do it. Also, governments try to regulate people’s consumption behaviour
by launching campaigns that stimulate consumption to avoid the economic stagnation from getting
worse. This is also what happened in Turkey in 2009, where the government launched a five-week
campaign to give the economy an impulse (Kaytaz et al., 2014).
In the period between 2006 and 2011, the unemployment rate in Spain rose from a bit under 8.5
percent to 21,6 percent. Previously mentioned households that were not affected directly still
reduced their amount of consumption by 0.7 per point (if unemployment rose 1 percent,
consumption decreased with 0.7 percent). This implies that when people expect to have a lower
future income, they already start saving at this moment, even though the future lower income might
not even be applicable to their household (Campos et al., 2015).
In Iceland, vehicle ownership had risen steadily every year since 1995, with its max in 2008. After this
year, the number dropped for the first time in 14 years due to the start of the period of economic
stagnation. After 2010, the number started rising again and has not stopped rising until now
(Ulfarsson et al., 2015). This is comparable to situations all over the world, with air travelling also
being reduced during the financial crisis in Europe and the U.S.A.
Appendix 2 compares a lot of measures regarding consumption behaviour taken by Turkish
households. The left side of the table shows the percentage of households using the ‘coping strategy’
and the right table shows the percentage that uses that strategy because of the economic crisis. Next
to working more and letting children work to make ends meet, there are certain consumption
changes that were seen in Turkish households.
Firstly, there are housing- and family-related strategies. These involve moving to cheaper housing,
moving in with relatives, postponing getting more children or people having to move away to search
for work. Since unemployment in Turkey rose from 7.3 percent (at the lowest point) to 14.8 percent
in 2009, this last measure has become more relevant than it used to be (Trading Economics, 2016).
This can be compared to the situation in the Netherlands, where the unemployment rose from 3.7
percent to 7.3 percent as can be seen in Appendix 1. Further, amongst main consumption cutbacks
were vacations. Families either go on vacation less often or go to cheaper vacation destinations (e.g.
in their own country). Smaller visits to relatives can also be a method of cutback; almost 40 percent
of Turkish households do this. This also applies to going out less, which is done by just over 40
percent.
Purchasing new clothes, buying cheaper food and consuming less meat are measures that more than
half of the respondents in the research of Aytaç (2014) regularly use to save money. Other products
that they cut back on are books, cd’s, dvd’s and household goods. Lastly, there are bigger expenses
where a lot of money can be saved. Examples of these bigger cutbacks are selling a car or trading it in
for a cheaper model and selling assets. As can be seen in Figure 5, consumption changes due to a
decrease in GDP differ between different kinds of products (Kaytaz, 2014). Food is a necessary
product, so it fluctuates less than durables, which is much more crisis-sensitive and GDP-related.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Figure 5: Consumption and GDP in Turkey (TURKSTAT in Aykaz et al., 2014)
Furthermore, there were quite some cutbacks in Turkey in the beginning of the period of economic
stagnation. Main cutbacks involved replacing expensive food consumption with cheaper alternatives,
generally decreasing food consumption and simply stopping buying certain non-food products.
Transportation can also be an easy cutback; people walk to work more often or use public
transportation instead of their own cars. Households even cut back on health insurance, as described
before in this thesis (Kaytaz et al., 2014).
As with borrowing behaviour, uncertainty also affects consumption behaviour in a lot of ways. This
involves income uncertainty, employment uncertainty and health uncertainty, which are all aspects
that are related to a period of economic stagnation. With regard to consumption, people with a
higher degree of uncertainty about their future income tend to consume less than people with less
uncertainty. Also, higher uncertainty about one’s income leads to less financial risk-taking
(Hochguertel, 2003).
Urbonavicius (2010) also states this as being one of the influencing factors in crisis behaviour. He
distinguishes factors, emotional responses and behavioural outcomes, as can be seen in Figure 6.
These three parts of Figure 6 match with previously mentioned causes and their behavioural
responses, often executed in periods of economic stagnation. In the end, people save money by
cutting back on quantity or quality of products and services. Emotional responses two and three are
related to so called defensive behaviour, trying to save themselves and their household by reducing
spendings. Responses one, five and six are related to the fact that not all households are being hit
equally by the crisis. Some sectors simply have fewer changes in wages and less unemployment.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Emotional response four is related to very assertive people that live by the day. They keep on
consuming hedonically and might or might not get into trouble after maintaining this behaviour for a
certain amount of time (Urbonavicius et al., 2010).
Figure 6: Factors, emotional responses and behavioural outcomes (Urbonavicius et al., 2010)
2.6 Economic stagnation, health and happiness
Economic stagnation not only has an effect on people’s financial behaviour, but also on households
and people themselves. This can be summarized into the health aspect, which will be analysed with
regard to economic stagnation. The definition of health that will be used is: “a complete state of
physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO,
1948). While analysing mental health, stress in an important factor. The definition of stress that will
be used is: “the non-specific response of the body to any demand for change” (Selye, 2013).
Measures during the crisis
The crisis has had an effect on a lot of different aspects of daily life, from spending behaviour to the
amount of working hours. Another aspect, valued highly by citizens, is the effects it has had on
people’s health and the health care system. Some effects were predicted beforehand, like an
increase in suicides and a decrease in road traffic deaths, but other effects were not (Karanikolos et
al., 2013). In this chapter, the situation in Europe will be discussed. Points of discussion will be what
has changed due to the crisis and how people responded to these changes.
In South-European countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal, where the crisis hit the hardest, budget
cuts have caused restricted access to health care they did have access to before. This is big contrast
with Iceland for example, which chose not to implement austerian measures. This decision turned
out to be a good one, since Iceland did not have many big negative changes with regard to health.
Other countries like the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia had implemented fiscal
measures already before the crisis. They had financial reserves thanks to so called countercyclical
policies or had governments that stimulated economically inactive groups. In countries like Belgium
and Denmark, health budgets were protected against the crisis and in the UK the health care system
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
and expenditures were frozen. The UK made the choice to cut in other sectors (Karanikolos et al.,
2013).
The countries that implemented budget cuts on the health sector, like Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and
Portugal, reduced the salaries of people working in health care. These measures could eventually
lead to bigger imbalances between countries, which in its turn could lead to a healthcare brain drain
and ultimately in a health care system that is even worse than before (Karanikolos et al., 2013). In
the Netherlands, minor changes were made to what was included in the benefits package. This
involved the removal of in-vitro fertilization and physiotherapy. Other countries like France, Romania
and Slovenia also removed certain aspects of their healthcare that were in before the crisis
(Karanikolos et al., 2013).
Instead of applying measures to healthcare directly, also indirect measures were taken to reduce the
costs or healthcare. To gain more money and to destimulate unhealthy behaviour, some countries
increased the taxes on alcohol, tobacco or both. Because these products have a price elasticity of less
than one, they tend to generate revenue and actually decrease consumption.
Health consequences of current crisis
Some papers have already been written about the 2008 crisis, but most consequences will become
visible when the crisis is really over. The article of Karanikolos (2013) describes some of the early
consequences that appeared. They noted that most health and mortality data has a lag of about 2
years, which is another reason of the relatively small amount of numbers available about the crisis.
Previous analyses about crisis related health changes found that unemployed people had a 20 to 25%
higher mortality rate than other people in the same socioeconomic group that were not unemployed
(Marmot et al., 2009). Not only mortality rises, the chance of getting a mental health disorder also
increases. This involves major depressions, which increase the most during a crisis compared to other
mental problems, but also an increased amount of panic attacks that occur, alcohol dependence and
higher anxiety levels (Gili et al., 2013).
Gili (2013) confirms this by stating that even only the fear and insecurity that is caused by the idea of
unemployment is related to reduced physical and mental health, sometimes even more than when
someone actually loses his job. On the other hand, the financial crisis can also cause unexpected
health improvements. Examples are less drinking and smoking due to budget cuts or walking and
cycling to work instead of driving ones car. In Spain, the number of suicides might be higher during
economic recession, but overall mortality is higher when the economy is growing (Gili et al., 2013).
According to Cornelisse-Vermaat et al. (2006), unemployment has a negative effect on health. Not
only unemployment has this effect, but even the idea of losing one’s job and being able to pay bills
anymore can already lead to financial stress. There are six factors that are the most important
influencers of subjective health. These factors are personal conditions, family relations, social
economy, society, personal values and personal freedom. Personal conditions is related to education,
income and age. Family relations is about marriages, divorces and if one lives together with someone
or not. Social economy relates to income, amount of working hours and job security. Society simply is
the social capital, if people spend time with friends, neighbours and if they trust their
neighbourhood. Personal values are people’s attitudes towards life aspects, like religion. Lastly,
personal freedom is about how people perceive the government and if the feel free. All together,
these factors influence happiness, which in its turn is very closely related to mental health.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
This mental health, as described before, is also very closely related to physical health. Different kinds
of tests have proven that mental problems can lead to physical problems, like heart attacks, strokes
and kidney diseases. Of course, this is not applicable to every person. Everybody responds to stress in
a different way, which can be both positive and negative. Klok (2015) states that financial stress can
occur when the financial burden is higher than the financial capacity of a person. Then this person
can get afraid of being unable to pay bills or that his or her lifestyle has to be adapted to the
situation. During economic stagnation, the chance is higher that this kind of financial stress occurs,
due to more people with social security benefits and more people with a lower income (Bijl et al.,
2013). Lastly, financial stress tends to occur more often at younger people than at middle-aged
people and also more at people with a low socioeconomic status. Women tend to have higher levels
of anxiety for financial stress, although for both men and women anxiety about financial stress
decreases as people get older (Klok, 2015).
Multiple previously done researches concluded that people that have problematic debts often live an
unhealthier life than people who do not have debts. They eat unhealthier food, smoke more often,
have more psychosocial complaints and do less physical activities that keep them healthy. The
combination of these factors leads to an increase in suicides. Though, there is a paradox in this.
Economic stagnation can also lead to less traffic accidents and people not having money for
unhealthy food and alcohol. Unemployed people also have more time to play sports and stay health.
So, although people might have financial stress, it does not necessarily affect their health.
When looking at other European countries, one can see that there are a number of things that have
changed because of the crisis. An article by Turkish researchers (Aytaç et al., 2014) looked at the
impact of the financial crisis of 2008 on neighbourhoods and households in Turkey. This is a different
kind of country than the Netherlands in multiple aspects like religion, climate and main sources of
income, but gives an image of the impact of the crisis and it is still a European country. Turkish
households said that there were a number of factors heavily influenced by the crisis. The number of
divorces rose, child labour went up, theft and other criminal activities became more present, there
were more homeless people, there was more hunger and also more poverty (Aytaç et al., 2014).
These were answers, given by so called neighbourhood heads, people that participated in the name
of certain neighbourhood. In Appendix 2 is stated how urban households coped with the financial
crisis.
Happiness
The relation between the period of economic stagnation and the happiness of people is present in a
lot of areas. People that have jobs are mostly happier than people that are unemployed, unless they
are unemployed voluntarily. Job security, the possibility to get loans from banks and a lot more
factors can be related to how happy a person feels. One of the most paradoxical factors in this case is
income. As Mohanty (2014) describes, “a human being needs at least the basic necessities for his
very survival, and to that extent income is indispensable for his or her well-being”. Luxury product
and services are therefore not essential in a person’s life, but they do add convenience to one’s life
and stimulate happiness (Mohanty et al., 2014). Mohanty’s conclusion, supported by other authors in
his article (Drakopoulos, 2007; Layard, 2005), is that other factors than income become a lot more
important after the basics for survival are met. This is confirmed by other articles Mohanty (2014)
mentions (Easterlin, 1995 and 2001; Myers, 2000), since they say that the income in the US has risen
a lot over the last few decades, whereas happiness has not increased a lot. Other factors that are
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
determinants of happiness are good health, supportive marriage, freedom, lack of tragedy and good
social relationships. These factors become more important as income rises and thus the basic need
for survival is already met (Mohanty et al., 2014).
2.7 Hypotheses
The first hypothesis could be written in two ways. The first possibility is that households spend what
they have to spend, so everything they consume is ‘necessary’. In practice, people also consume
luxury goods, which will decrease as they have less money to spend because of before mentioned
reasons. That is why hypothesis three will be: Due to the period of economic stagnation, households
spend less money than they did before this period. As with the first two hypothesis, amount of debt,
amount of savings money and monthly net income are all expected to influence one’s economization
behaviour.
Because of the same reasons as which hypothesis one is based on, the second hypothesis is created.
To make sure households can make ends meet, sometimes borrowing money is necessary. This will
happen more often in times of economic stagnation than in times of prosperity and this is why
hypothesis two is: Due to the period of economic stagnation, households have more debt than they
did before this period. The expectation is that this might be related to a household’s net income and
the debt they already had. If a household has a big buffer to fall back on in tough times, they might
not have to take measures that cause more debt. Also, having a paid job would ensure a stable
income, thus lowering chances of an increased debt.
Since the economic stagnation causes more unemployment, people working less hours a week or
people earning less money in general, incomes are lower. During periods of economic stagnation,
households have a harder time making ends meet, as can be seen in the article published by the
NIBUD (2015). This would mean that they have less money that can be saved and thus is the third
hypothesis: Due to the period of economic stagnation, households save less money than they did
before this period. One would expect a few correlations between respondents’ characteristics and
the effect it has on household saving behaviour. People with a contract, working fulltime are
expected to be hurt less by the effects of the period of economic stagnation. The same counts for
higher educated people and higher income people, as these are all closely related. Also, people who
are better in managing their finances, thus making budgets, are not expected to save less. Age will
also play a part in explaining if households saved less. Retired people of course do not save money
anymore in most cases. People between 35 and 65 tend to have more stable jobs and thus more
stable incomes, which then leads to stable saving behaviour.
As can be seen in the theories about happiness in the previous section, income is a determinant of
relatively low importance for how happy people are. Still, if people get unemployed and have an
income that is a lot lower than before, it probably affects their happiness. If basic necessities cannot
be bought anymore, happiness will definitely decrease. Since the economy is growing again and
perceived economic stability also partly determines happiness (Graham et al., 2006), hypothesis four
will be: Households are happier at this moment than they were 5 years ago. Of course, a lot of factors
play in role in one’s happiness. This can be monetary factors related to income, savings and debt, but
also factors like health and possible household changes like divorces.
The second last hypothesis is based on the simple fact that it is proven that people cut on healthcare
in times of economic stagnation. They visit doctors less often for small things, whereas they would
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
have visited doctors for the same problems in times of prosperity. This hypothesis will be: Household
members are less healthy now than they were five years ago. Since there is a link between economic
stagnation and cuts on healthcare, a relation between income and health is expected. The same
counts for having a paid job or not and if people have economized a lot during the period of
economic stagnation.
Hypothesis six is based on consumer confidence. This can be an important determinant in how
consumers behave, even though this might be different from the actual economic situation at the
time. As can be seen in section 3.5, consumer confidence is rising again. This is why the last
hypothesis is: Households are more positive about their current situation than about the situation
before. Since this is a combination of a lot of factors, almost all previously mentioned correlations are
expected here.
The last three hypotheses are based on assumptions that were made in the different articles that
were used in this paper. In general, people who use their financial competencies and watch their
spendings, keep up with their account balances and budgets and look ahead should be less affected.
They see financial problems coming and thus can respond in the proper way. People with a higher
income simply have a bigger buffer to fall back on if confronted with financial problems due to the
economic stagnation. Lastly, higher educated people can deal with possible problems in an
intellectual way. They weigh their opportunities and come to a good, well-thought solution.
Overview of the hypotheses:
H1: Because of the period of economic stagnation, households spend less money than they did before
this period.
H2: Because of the period of economic stagnation, households have more debt than they did before
this period.
H3: Because of the period of economic stagnation, households save less money than they did before
this period.
H4: Households are happier at this moment than they were 5 years ago.
H5: Household members are less healthy now than they were five years ago.
H6: Households are more positive about their current situation than about the situation before.
H7: Households that apply financial management competencies are less affected by the economic
stagnation.
H8: Households with a higher income are less affected by the economic stagnation.
H9: Households with a higher level of education are less affected by the economic stagnation.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
3. Data and method
To answer the main question and the related sub questions, a combination of literature and primary
data analysis is used. As mentioned before, the preference is given to empirical literature, because
that gives a good indication of the actual consequences in different countries. This empirical
literature is complemented with literature and statistics of the Netherlands. This involves the Central
Bureau for Statistics (CBS), the NIBUD (Dutch institute for budgeting) and certain Dutch
governmental websites.
From this literature and previously done researches about financial crises, a questionnaire is formed.
This questionnaire can be found in Appendix 7. This questionnaire has been taken online by 111
respondents, varying in age, family situation, income and other characteristics. For this, the online
questionnaire website Qualtrics is used. The results, gathered by Qualtrics, will be processed with the
use of SPSS. By doing this, conclusions can be drawn about factors that determine certain household
behaviour. The dependent variables will be tested for significance at a 0.1 level. A description of the
respondents is stated at the end of this section.
The respondents were gathered by distributing the survey link amongst as many people as possible.
The people that filled in the questionnaire were asked to send it to friends, family and colleagues,
thus reaching as many people as possible. Because these groups of people consist of both higheducated and low-educated people, the group of respondents became more divers.
The household economization score, as explained hereafter, is used both as dependent and
independent variable. As a dependent variable to see what factors determine the amount of
economization a household applies and as independent variable to see whether the amount of
economization also influences health, happiness and a households overall performance. From the
literature, the other independent variables that were used in the SPSS analyses could be derived.
Education level, age, having a job, amount of debt, amount of savings money and net income are all
variables that return in most articles about economic stagnation and its consequences. That is why
they were also used as independent variables in this thesis. The factors making budgets, checking
account balance and checking in and out of account all have to do with financial management, which
is a big part of the theoretical framework. To see whether these financial management factors also
influence households and their behaviour, they are also used as independent variables. Lastly, there
are the factors cost/income ratio >1 and household changes. The first is a depiction of whether
households have enough income to cover their costs, which plays a part in their behaviour with
regard to saving, spending and borrowing. The latter is a variable, made to see if big household
changes like divorces, marriages and children leaving the house affect a household’s behaviour. This
can cost or save a lot of money for a household, so this independent variable is used to see whether
this is the case.
For analysing the SPSS data and testing the hypotheses, new variables were created. The first
variable is the household economization score. In the Qualtrics questionnaire, nine questions were
asked about whether people economized on a certain product or service. People could answer
‘completely disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neutral’, ‘agree’ or ‘completely agree’. These answers were rated
respectively as -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2. After that, the answers per respondent were summed up, which
created a total score varying between -18 and 18. By adding the maximum score to these total
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
scores, a standardized score was created. The minimum of this score was zero, the maximum 38.
Because these numbers were positive, regression analyses could be applied.
The variable household performance score was created in the same way, but with less variables. This
variable consists of the standardized answers to the questions ‘does your household perform better
now than it did five years ago?’ and the question ‘will the performance of your household improve in
the next few years?’. The maximum score of this variable was eight, the minimum zero so a
regression could be applied.
To get a better overview of the effect the level of education has on the dependent variables, two
dummy variables were made. The variables middle-educated and high-educated were created , based
on classifications of the Dutch government (Nationaal Kompas, 2014).
After analysing the quantitative results from SPSS, the choice had to be made which topics needed a
deeper analysis. When this had been determined, a small qualitative analysis was done to get more
detailed explanations of the questionnaire answers. This let households explain in their own words
why they performed certain behaviour and complemented the quantitative results with qualitative
answers.
The hypotheses were tested by applying ordinal regressions and linear regressions. Ordinal
regression was used, because the dependent variables were ordinal. For the non-ordinal variables,
such as the household performance score and the household economization score, linear regression
was used. These dependent variables were scores between zero and eight and zero and 38
respectively, so linear regression had to be applied.
Only three interviews were conducted. The reason for this is that in practice, people do not want to
talk about the consequences the economic stagnation has had for them. Multiple people were
approached for the interviews, but all of them refused. In the end, three people were asked
questions about the consequences of the economic stagnation in their environment, not talking
specifically about themselves. In these interviews, the interviewees were asked about reasons why
they think people perform certain behaviour with regard to the economic stagnation. The interviews
were semi-structured with predetermined questions, but also with room for interviewees to
elaborate on certain topics if they wanted to.
Description of the respondents
As can be seen in Table 3.1, most people are between age 25 and 65. These are the working people,
which is probably also the most relevant age group for this research. The period of economic
stagnation also influences the elderly. This percentage of people that is older than 65 is almost 10
percent. This is not a very big part, but at least some conclusions can be drawn considering this
group. Compared to the Dutch averages considering age, this date differs slightly. For example, the
age group 25-34 makes up 12.2 percent of the total Dutch population, while it makes up 8.1 percent
here. The age group 45-54 makes up 34.2 percent of these respondents, whereas in the national
population it makes up only 15.1 percent. This means this research has more people than normal in
the working population (CBS, 2016).
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Table 3.1: Age of respondent
Age (N=111)
Age <25
Age 25-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-54
Age 55-64
Age 65+
Mean
Frequency
4
9
16
38
35
9
Percentage(%)
3.6
8.1
14.4
34.2
31.6
8.1
50 years old
In Table 3.2 it states that the intermediate and higher vocational education are the two biggest types
of education. The people that have secondary school as their highest finished education were asked
which level of secondary school this was. These people often followed the lower level educations.
Comparing this to the numbers of the Dutch population, one can conclude this group of respondents
has a higher average education. 56.7 percent of this group is higher educated, which means they
have done either a higher vocational education or university. The national average is only 35 percent
(Onderwijs in cijfers, 2016).
Table 3.2: Educational background of respondent
Highest finished education
(N=111)
Secondary school
Intermediate vocational
education (MBO)
Higher vocational education
(HBO)
University
Frequency
Percentage(%)
10
9.0
38
34.2
46
41.4
17
15.3
From Table 3.3, the conclusion can be drawn most respondents have a full time job or a part time
job. These are respectively 38.7 percent and 30.6 percent. The third biggest group are the people
that answered ‘other’. This often involved people with an own company, thus not belonging to any of
the above mentioned categories.
As with the respondents’ situation, the respondents’ partners also generally have a full time or part
time job. This applies to respectively 34.2 and 18.0 percent of the partners. There are some retired
people and some people that answered ‘other’ who have their own company.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Table 3.3: Respondent's situation
Situation that applies to
respondent (N=111)
Paid job >32h per week
Paid job 15-32h per week
Paid job <15h per week
Paid job with irregular amount
of hours per week
Unemployed with
unemployment benefits (WW)
Unemployed without
unemployment benefits (WW)
Law for disability insurance
(WAO)
Retired
Studying
Taking care of household (no
other job)
Voluntary work
Own company
Frequency
Percentage(%)
Respondent
43
37
4
Partner
38
20
2
Respondent
38.7
33.3
3.6
Partner
34.2
18.0
1.8
4
2
3.6
1.8
2
2
1.8
1.8
0
1
0.0
0.9
1
2
0.9
1.9
6
1
5
0
5.4
0.9
4.6
0.0
4
3
3.6
3.4
2
7
0
14
1.8
6.3
0.0
12.6
Most people still have a contract with indefinite duration, as can be seen in Table 3.4. 64 percent is
quite high in this case, especially when comparing this with previously mentioned data about
unemployment. The most common answers that were given amongst ‘other’, were people with an
own company. As can be seen, the total percentage is 85.6 percent. This is because the other 14.4
percent does not have a job.
As with the respondents working contracts, the respondents’ partners also mostly have indefinite
contracts. The percentages are lower, because not all respondents had partners. The people that
answered ‘other’ is higher compared to the respondents answers. Still, most of the ‘other’ reasons
were that their partner had his or her own company.
Table3.4: Type of contract of respondent
Kind of working contract (N=95)
Contract with indefinite
duration
1 year contract
Contract on call
Freelancer (ZZP)
Other
Frequency
Respondent
Partner
Percentage(%)
Respondent
Partner
71
51
64.0
45.9
7
1
5
11
6
0
4
18
6.3
0.9
4.5
9.9
5.4
0.0
3.6
16.2
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
As can be seen in Table 3.5, the amount of income the respondents’ households is relatively equally
distributed. The only groups that have a significantly lower percentage are the three groups with
incomes under 2000 euro. The average household income of the respondents is between 3000 and
3500 euro.
Table 3.5: Income of respondents
Monthly net income of
household (N=102)
<1000 euro
1000 – 1500 euro
1500 – 2000 euro
2000 – 2500 euro
2500 – 3000 euro
3000 – 3500 euro
3500 – 4000 euro
4000 – 4500 euro
4500 – 5000 euro
>5000 euro
Mean
Frequency
Percentage(%)
2
3
6
11
15
15
14
13
10
13
2.0
2.9
5.9
10.8
14.7
14.7
13.8
12.7
9.8
12.7
3000-3500 euro’s
The gathered data regarding debts and paying difficulties is very different when compared to the
research the NIBUD (2015) did, as can be seen in Tables 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8. People apparently do not
have a lot of problems with overdraft, paying bills in time and buying necessary products. Still, almost
three quarters of all respondents have one or more kinds of debt, as can be seen in Table 3.7. Most
of them have a mortgage (64.7%), but loans from a bank are also relatively common. These
mortgages tend to be relatively high, which explains the numbers in Table 3.8. Most people have
between 100 000 and 200 000 euros of debt, which mainly consists of mortgages. This is also the
average debt of the households.
Table 3.6: Payment problems
Payment problems
(N=108)
Number of times in
overdraft (N=108)
Frequency
More than 10 times
per year
Between 5 and 10
times per year
1 or 2 times per year
Never
Number of times
Number of times having having troubles buying
problems with paying
necessary products
bills in time(N=108)
(N=108)
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
(%)
(%)
1
0.9%
1
0.9%
13
Percentage
(%)
12.0%
11
10.2%
1
0.9%
2
1.9%
26
58
24.1%
53.7%
13
93
12.0%
86.1%
14
91
13.0%
84.3%
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Table 3.7: Kinds of debts
Kinds of debts (N=108)
Loan from a bank
Loan from an investment firm
Loan from friends/family
Mortgage
Study debt
Other
No debt
Frequency
10
0
2
71
5
1
30
Percentage
9.3%
0.0%
1.9%
64.7%
4.6%
0.9%
27.8%
Frequency
Percentage(%)
5
5
6.7
6.7
4
5.3
10
13.3
12
16.0
24
32.0
14
18.7
Table 3.8: Amount of debt
Amount of debt per household
(N=75)
Between 500 and 2000 euro
Between 2000 and 10 000 euro
Between 10 000 and 25 000
euro
Between 25 000 and 50 000
euro
Between 50 000 and 100 000
euro
Between 100 000 and 200 000
euro
Between 200 000 and 500 000
euro
More than 500 000 euro
Mean
1
1.3
Between 100 000 and 200 000 euro’s
From Table 3.9, one can see that most households have their own car and that they have saved
money for the moment there are retiring. The percentage of households that owns shares,
obligations or a second house is relatively small. The last thing that stands out is that more than
thirty percent of all households have had to deal with being involuntarily unemployed, which is a
high percentage. Compared to the Dutch national average, which is only 6.4 percent, this is very high.
An explanation can be that the question is whether somebody has been unemployed somewhere
during the period from 2008. This period of unemployment could have lasted only a few weeks,
which causes the percentage to be very high even though the actual situation is not as worse as it
seems. Also, the question was whether a member of the household had been unemployed, so the
respondents are actually answering for two persons if the respondent has a partner.
To elaborate on the high number of people that had to deal with involuntary unemployment over the
last few years, one can look at the characteristics of the people that were hit. The average age of
these people was 49 years old. 15 out of 31 have had a higher education (university or higher
vocational education) and 23 of them now have a paid job where they work more than 15 hours a
week. Their income is comparable to the income of the rest of the respondents.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Table 3.9: Situations and possessions
Situations that apply to
respondents (N=101)
Household owns obligations
Household owns a second house
Household owns shares
Household has money saved for
retirement
Household owns a car
Household has had a divorce in
the period since 2008
Household members have been
involuntarily unemployed in the
period since 2008
Household members could work
less due to employers’ measures
in the period since 2008
In the last 5 years, 1 or more
children have left the household
In the last 5 years, 1 or more
children joined the household
In the last 5 years, an adult has
left the household
In the last 5 years, an adult has
joined the household
Frequency
Percentage(%)
9
6
32
8.9
5.9
31.7
86
85.1
92
91.1
7
6.9
31
30.7
14
13.9
34
33.7
8
7.9
6
5.9
6
5.9
In Table 3.10, it says people these days are happier than they were 5 years ago. The percentage of
people that values their happiness with a 6 or higher has grown from 88.2 percent to 92.0 percent.
With regard to health, the people that values their health very low (between 1 and 2) has decreased
to zero and the percentage of respondents that gives their health a grade above 6 has increased from
92 percent to 93.1 percent. This can be seen in Table 3.11. On average, people rated their happiness
with a 7.6 five years ago and a 7.9 now. With regard to their health, they rated this with a 8.1 five
years ago and 8.2 now. There is a significant difference between people’s happiness now and five
years ago (significance = 0.004), but no significant difference between people’s health now and five
years ago. In the next section, the differences between the situation now and five years ago will be
discussed.
Table 3.10: Happiness 5 years ago and now
Happiness 5 years ago
Happiness 5 years ago and now.
1=very unhappy, 10=very happy
(N=102)
Between 1 and 2
Between 2 and 3
Between 3 and 4
Between 4 and 5
Happiness now
Frequency
Percentage(%)
Frequency
Percentage(%)
3
0
2
1
2.9
0.0
2.0
1.0
1
0
0
0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Between 5 and 6
Between 6 and 7
Between 7 and 8
Between 8 and 9
Between 9 and 10
Mean
6
16
35
27
12
5.9
15.7
34.3
26.5
11.7
7
16
27
36
13
7.0
16.0
27.0
36.0
13.0
7.6
7.9
Health 5 years ago
Health now
Tabel 3.11: Health 5 years ago and now
Health 5 years ago and now.
1=very unhappy, 10=very happy
(N=102)
Between 1 and 2
Between 2 and 3
Between 3 and 4
Between 4 and 5
Between 5 and 6
Between 6 and 7
Between 7 and 8
Between 8 and 9
Between 9 and 10
Mean
Frequency
Percentage(%)
Frequency
Percentage(%)
3
1
0
1
3
8
25
33
26
3.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
8.0
25.0
33.0
26.0
0
0
1
2
4
12
30
30
22
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.9
11.9
29.7
29.7
21.8
8.1
8.2
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
4. Results
In this chapter, the results that were obtained through the Qualtrics questionnaire will be analysed.
Different regression analyses will be used to determine which independent variables might affect the
dependent variables. Finally, the hypotheses will be discussed and conclusions about these
hypotheses will be drawn.
To test the hypothesis, different kinds of analyses have been done. The results of regression analyses
between the dependent and independent variables are stated below. Also, the correlations between
the used independent variables are stated in Appendix 8. There, it becomes clear which variables are
linked to each other. People’s education and the extent to which they had to economize is related, as
is income and the amount of debt. These are some examples of correlations that apply to this group
of respondents. The other significant correlations are marked with an asterisk in Appendix 8.
4.1 Descriptives of hypotheses variables
In Table 4.1, one can see the scores that are linked to the respondents. With a mean of 13.8, which is
relatively low compared to the maximum score possible, it can be concluded that the respondents
did not economize that much. There are some exceptions, but in general the group with an
economization score that is lower than the mean is higher than the group of respondents with
above-average economization behaviour. Still, 7.6 percent had a score between 26 and 36, which
means that there is a number of households that is hurt a lot by the economic stagnation. Among
these 7.6 percent, most people were not high educated. Only two out of eight people finished higher
vocational education or university. Three out of eight people have their own company or are
freelancers and seven out of eight respondents have an income that is lower than the respondents’
average income.
Economization could be applied in some different ways, as can be seen in the questionnaire in
Appendix 7. Since the level of economization a household had to apply could affect different
dependent variables, this variable will be used as an independent variable in the regression analyses.
Economizing took place mostly with luxury goods, such as vacations, days out, going out for dinner
and clothing.
Table 4.1: Descriptives of household economization score. A higher score implicates more economization. The maximum
is 38 and the minimum 0.
Score (N=104)
Score between 0 and 5
Score between 6 and 10
Score between 11 and 15
Score between 16 and 20
Score between 21 and 25
Score between 26 and 30
Score between 31 and 38
Mean
Frequency
22
12
22
28
12
4
4
Percentage(%)
21,2
11,5
21,2
26,9
11,5
3,8
3,8
13.8
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
From Table 4.2, one can see that only a very small part of the respondents actually had their debts
increased because of the period of economic stagnation. So people save less money and they do not
borrow more money to make ends meet. 6.7 percent of all respondents does this, whereas the
biggest part has more or less the same amount of debt. Surprisingly, more than a quarter of
households actually has less debts than before the economic stagnation.
Table 4.2: Descriptives debts
Debt (N=75)
More debt than before
economic stagnation
Less debt than before economic
stagnation
The same amount of debt as
before economic stagnation
Frequency
Percentage(%)
5
6.7
19
25.3
51
68.0
As can be seen in Table 4.3, the period of economic stagnation has had its effect on the respondents.
More than a third of all respondents saved less money than before the period of economic
stagnation. Over half of the respondents saved more or less the same and only ten percent saved
more money than before.
Table 4.3: Descriptives saving behaviour
Savings (N=108)
Saved more than before
economic stagnation
Saved less than before
economic stagnation
Saved the same amount as
before economic stagnation
Frequency
Percentage(%)
11
10,2
39
58
36.1
53.7
Most people are now happier than before, as can be seen in Table 4.4 below. Although still a quarter
of all respondents actually became less happy in the period of economic stagnation, most people are
equally happy or happier than before. A paired samples t-test showed a significant difference
between people’s happiness five years ago and their happiness now.
Table 4.4: Descriptives happiness now and before
Happiness (N=105)
Happier now than before
Equally happy as before
Less happy than before
Frequency
46
35
24
Percentage(%)
43.8
33.3
22.9
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
In Table 4.5, it states that most people equally healthy when compared to their situation five years
ago. Around the same amount of people were less healthy and only a quarter was actually more
healthy than they were before. A paired samples t-test showed that there is no significant difference
between the respondents’ health five years ago and now.
Table 4.5: Descriptives health now and before
Health (N=100)
Healthier now than before
Equally healthy as before
Less healthy now than before
Frequency
26
39
35
Percentage(%)
26.0
39.0
35.0
In Table 4.6, the household performance score is stated. This variable consists of two variables; the
score people give their household’s performance when compared to previous years and the score
they give their household for the upcoming years. One can see that respondents do not value their
own household very high. Only four people give themselves the maximum score, whereas more
people give themselves the minimum score. Most people have scored in or around the mean score,
with more than a quarter scoring a four.
Table 4.6: Descriptives of household performance score. A higher score implicates a better performance now than before.
The maximum is 8 and the minimum 0.
Performance (N=103)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
Frequency
6
4
14
12
28
13
19
3
4
Percentage(%)
5.8
3.9
13.6
11.7
27.2
12.6
18.4
2.9
3.9
4
4.2 Regression results hypotheses
There are some independent variables which are closely linked to the household economization
score. As said before, the link between saving less money and economizing more is very much
present. This is confirmed in Table 4.7 below. This Table also shows that if a households’ net income
is higher, this household also tends to economize less. This makes sense, since these households
have bigger buffers to fall back on. Lastly, people with more debt had to economize more during the
economic stagnation.
The hypothesis related to the household economization score was: ‘Due to the period of economic
stagnation, households spend less money than they did before this period.’ The most important
factors determining whether a household economized during the economic stagnation are the
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
amount of debt, the monthly net income and whether people saved less. From the descriptives in
Table 4.1, the hypothesis can be analysed. The first hypothesis was: Due to the period of economic
stagnation, households spend less money than they did before this period. Because only six people
did not economize and the rest did, with respondents averaging a score of four out of eight, this
hypothesis is confirmed.
Table 4.7: Effects of independent variables on dependent variable household economization score
Factor
Middle-educated
High-educated
Costs/income ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
Making budgets
Checking account balance
Checking in and out of account
Amount of savings money
Amount of debt
Net income
Household changes
Household saved less
Increased debt
R-squared
B- value
-2,258
-2,444
,709
1,047
1,419
3,474
2,304
,772
1,990
,633
-,655
,860
-,870
,126
5,449
3,860
Significance
,504
,471
,782
,797
,686
,283
,339
,690
,243
,697
,272
,091*
,071*
,944
,010*
,280
0.682
Below, in Table 4.8, the regression results on the factor ‘more debt’ are stated. The most important
factor in determining if debts increased or decreased is the cost/income ratio. If people have more
costs than income, their debts tend to increase. What is also the case, is that people who economize
more also created more debts. Still, the B value of the household economization score is so low, that
it is not very relevant.
Hypothesis two was: ‘Due to the period of economic stagnation, households have more debt than
they did before this period.’ From gathered data, it appears this is not the case with the respondents
of this research. Only five people actually had more debt than before the period of economic
stagnation, which is very low. Whether people have more debt is mostly determined by the factor
the ratio of costs divided by a households income. In conclusion, this hypothesis is rejected.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Table 4.8: Effects of independent variables on dependent variable more debt
‘Household economization
score’
Middle-educated
High-educated
Costs/income ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
Making budgets
Checking account balance
Checking in and out of account
Amount of savings money
Amount of debt
Net income
Household changes
R-squared
B-value
,009
Significance
,055*
,055
,022
,195
-,198
-,129
-,161
,054
,044
-,029
-,034
-,012
-,008
-,004
,016
,668
,864
,042*
,198
,335
,191
,560
,543
,649
,584
,609
,681
,836
,808
0.530
In Table 4.9, one can see that different independent variables have different effects on whether
people save less money than before the period of economic stagnation or not. The first significant
factor is the household economization score. This means that the more people have economized
because of the economic stagnation, the likelier people have also saved less money during that
period. Lastly, people managing their finances in a structured way were not forced to save less
money during the economic stagnation, as can be seen by significant variable ‘checking account
balance’.
The third hypothesis was: ‘Due to the period of economic stagnation, households save less money
than they did before this period.’ This accounted for 36.1 percent of all respondents, which is quite a
big percentage compared to the percentage of people who saved more money. Most people saved
the same amount, probably also due to the fact they expected some more problems so adjusting
their behaviour to this. In conclusion, not even half of all respondents saved less money. Thus, the
hypothesis is rejected. What has to be kept in mind is that still a fairly large part of the respondents
saved less money, so there is a tendency towards saving less because of the economic stagnation.
Table 4.9: Effects of independent variables on dependent variable saved less money
Factor
‘Household economization
score’
Middle-educated
High-educated
Costs/income ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
B- value
,237
Significance
,004*
-1,304
-2,529
1,058
-1,955
-,918
-,980
-,015
,399
,116
,393
,329
,589
,533
,990
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Making budgets
Checking account balance
Checking in and out of account
Amount of savings money
Amount of debt
Net income
Household changes
McFadden’s R-squared
-1,579
-1,740
,754
,486
-,186
-,359
1,269
,149
,060*
,364
,103
,459
,132
,154
0.469
Table 4.10, showing the regression results considering the happiness of household and what
influences them, shows some unexpected results. Firstly, having a paid job appears to make people
unhappier at this moment compared to five years ago. This could be caused by changing job
circumstances, which makes respondents’ work less pleasant and thus lowering this score. These
circumstances could be lower wages, the respondent cannot work as many hours as he or she could
before, or more work pressure. This is stated in the theoretical framework. Also, having more debt
makes people happier now than they were before. This could be more logical than it looks at first
sight. The kind of debt that most respondents have is a mortgage on their house, as can be seen in
previous chapters. Only people with a high income can afford a higher mortgage, so debt and income
are closely related in this case. That is why it is not clear why the amount of debt has a significant
effect on happiness and net income does not.
As described in Table 4.4, there is a significant difference between people’s happiness now and five
years ago. Hypothesis four was: Households are happier at this moment than they were 5 years ago.
This hypothesis is confirmed.
Table 4.10: Effects of independent variables on dependent variable household is happier than 5 years ago
Factor
‘Household economization
score’
Middle-educated
High-educated
Costs/income ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
Making budgets
Checking account balance
Checking in and out of account
Amount of savings money
Amount of debt
Net income
Household changes
Increased debt
Household saved less
McFadden’s R-squared
B- value
,027
Significance
,567
-1,307
-1,425
,296
-,088
,040
-,275
-1,622
1,072
-,031
-,359
-,318
,361
,013
1,009
-,842
,065
,294
,248
,732
,952
,974
,810
,062*
,110
,959
,530
,142
,052*
,939
,121
,489
,931
0.131
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
From Table 4.11 below, one can see that the health of people that check their bank account regularly
is less affected by the economic stagnation. These people are not less healthy now when compared
to five years ago. Also, if a person has a higher income, his or her health is also less affected.
Hypothesis five was: ‘Household members are less healthy now than they were five years ago .’ The
paired samples T-test shows that there is no significant difference between the health now and
health five years ago. Thus, this hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4.11: Effects of independent variables on dependent variable household is less healthy than 5 years ago
Factor
‘Household economization
score’
Middle-educated
High-educated
Costs/income ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
Making budgets
Checking account balance
Checking in and out of account
Amount of savings money
Amount of debt
Net income
Household changes
Increased debt
Household saved less
McFadden’s R-squared
B- value
-,017
Significance
,739
1,586
1,569
,659
-1,082
-1,069
-,699
,566
-1,085
-1,086
-,953
,060
,093
-,397
,276
-1,629
-1,040
,328
,354
,515
,476
,422
,568
,563
,147
,092*
,131
,797
,643
,054*
,682
,324
,218
0.155
The only significant independent variable affecting the household performance score, is if people
have a paid job. This can be seen in Table 4.12. Respondents who have a paid job score higher on this
aspect than respondents who do not. Unexpectedly, financial management factors such as making
budgets and checking account balances do not affect the performance score of households. Also, one
would expect the education level and a household’s income to have a link with the performance of a
household, but this is not the case.
The sixth hypothesis was: ‘Households are more positive about their current situation than about the
situation before.’ This does not have a clear answer, since the average score is four out of eight,
which is not very high. Therefore, this hypothesis is rejected. However, the amount of people being
really positive is smaller than the amount of people being really negative. The only significant factor
influencing this performance score is whether the respondent has a paid job.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Table 4.12: Effects of independent variables on dependent variable household performance score
Factor
‘Household economization
score’
Middle-educated
High-educated
Costs/income ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
Making budgets
Checking account balance
Checking in and out of account
Amount of savings money
Amount of debt
Net income
Household changes
Increased debt
Household saved less
R-squared
B- value
-,036
Significance
,367
-,131
-,638
-,195
,231
-,125
-,459
1,512
,485
-,133
,035
,086
-,090
,174
-,230
,131
-,338
,896
,527
,797
,848
,905
,635
,039*
,400
,794
,942
,627
,559
,233
,665
,839
,751
0.447
To analyse hypothesis seven, multiple tables need to be looked at. This hypothesis was: Households
that apply financial management competencies are less affected by the economic stagnation. From
Table 4.9, one can see that the saving behaviour of people that check their account balance regularly
(one of the financial competencies as mentioned in section 2.2) is less affected. They do not save less
because of the period of economic stagnation. The same applies to people’s health in Table 4.11.
People who check their account regularly are not unhealthier than before the economic stagnation.
Still, only 2 factors are influenced significantly by the variable ‘checking account balance’. The other
dependent variables are not affected by the financial competencies. That is why this hypothesis is
rejected.
For hypothesis eight, Tables 4.7 and 4.11 are used. These involve the variables that are significantly
affected by the independent variable ‘net income’. Hypothesis 8 was: Households with a higher
income are less affected by the economic stagnation. In Table 4.7, one can see that people with a
higher income had to economize less during the economic stagnation. Also, in Table 4.11 it states
that people with a higher income are not unhealthier than they were five years ago. In conclusion,
only two out of six dependent variables are affected significantly by the income of respondents.
Thus, this hypothesis is rejected, even though the tendency is that a higher income leads being less
affected by the economic stagnation.
The last hypothesis was: Households with a higher level of education are less affected by the
economic stagnation. There are no dependent variables that are significantly affected by the level of
education. Thus, hypothesis 8 is rejected. What has to be mentioned is what was described above
Table 4.1. Although a higher education does not lead to significant effects on the dependent
variables, there are mostly lower educated people among the households that had to economize the
most.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
In appendix 9, the results of the three conducted short interviews are stated. The main thing all three
interviewees said, was that the most occurring consequence of the economic stagnation is people
getting unemployed or being forced to work less and the consequences of this. Furthermore, the most
affected people are the lower income households, because they do not have any diploma’s to fall back
on if they get fired. On the other hand, interviewee three states that everybody suffers equally from the
economic stagnation, since both higher educated and lower educated people are getting fired.
According to the three interviewees, saving behaviour really depends on a person’s situation. The
hypothesis might apply to some people, but this will mostly be people heavily affected by the economic
stagnation. This involves people who are fired or had a cutback on the amount of hours they could
work. In the end, they think that one’s saving behaviour and its eventual changes largely depend on
one’s income.
The interviewees all had more or less the same opinion about people’s borrowing behaviour due to the
economic stagnation. They think households do borrow more money than they used to, although they
also think banks are not very keen on handing out loans to people. Because a lot of people have a lower
income than before the economic stagnation, they need money to make ends meet. This is why the
interviewees think households have more debt and that this money often comes from banks, friends or
family.
Economizing is a very common thing to do in times of economic stagnation, as is confirmed by the
interviewees. They all think luxury goods are something to economize in first, as they are not needed to
live one’s life normally. These luxury goods involve holidays, days out and goods such as furniture,
televisions and computers. Also, groceries are something a household should not economize on as this
is a person’s basic necessity of life.
With regard to health, the interviewees are divided. Interviewee one thinks everything will eventually
work out. This means that people are not happier or unhappier due to the economic stagnation. They
are more or less forced to find alternative solutions to their problems, which makes them stronger in
the end. Interviewee two thinks people get scared by people around them getting affected by the
economic stagnation. Also, unemployed people with lower incomes are probably unhappier. Lastly,
interviewee three thinks only the people directly affected by the economic stagnation will be affected.
This applies to the people having to work less or actually getting fired.
The interviewees think differently about health. Interviewee 1 thinks it might even have a positive
effect on one’s health, because people become more conscious about their life and might start to live a
healthier life than before. Interviewee three thinks the effect is not that big, because people do not
economize on healthcare. Still, stress can definitely affect a person’s health, so it depends on the
sensitivity with regard to stress of a person. Interviewee three states more or less the same and adds
that a lower income leads to more stress. People with lower incomes also tend to economize on
holidays, which actually means the economize on an activity that reduces stress. Lastly, all interviewees
agree that the Dutch economy and their own situation will probably recover. Still, it will take a few
years to fully recover and a lot of things then need to be done to make this happen. Although the house
market is already recovered, unemployment rate is still too high and too many people are still getting
fired due to economization.
Figure 7: Short interviews
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
5. Conclusion and discussion
The main research question was: ‘How has the behaviour of households changed due to the period of
economic stagnation that started in 2008?’. To answer this question, multiple sub-questions have to
be answered. Together, they can conclude which changes in behaviour took place in the period since
2008, which people it affected most and if this corresponds with previously done literature research.
This chapter will answer each sub-question, using both the literature and the results from the
questionnaire and interviews.
Consumption behaviour is one thing that definitely changed due to the period of economic
stagnation. This answers sub-question one: ‘How has the consumption behaviour of Dutch
households changed since the start of the period of economic stagnation in 2008?’. Both from the
questionnaire and the interviews, the same results appear. If households economize, they economize
on luxury goods such as days out, vacations and going out for dinner. Though, the average
economization score is only 13.8 out of the maximum 38. The economization score also depends on
the amount of debt and income. If a household had a higher income it economized less and if it had
more debt, it had to economize more.
The second sub-question was: ‘How has the borrowing behaviour of Dutch households changed since
the start of the period of economic stagnation in 2008?’. Only 6.7 percent of all respondents had
more debt due to the period of economic stagnation, which means only a small part borrowed more
money. The interviewees’ opinion was that people probably need to borrow more money, but that
banks are not selling a lot of loans. This results in people borrowing more money from family in
friends. In conclusion, the results from the questionnaire are different than those from the
interviews. The expectation was that more people had to borrow money, in practice this is not the
case.
Sub-question three was: ‘How has the saving behaviour of Dutch households changed since the start
of the period of economic stagnation in 2008?’. From the questionnaire, the researchers found that
more than a third of all respondents saved less money during the period of economic stagnation.
People managing their finance in a more structured way are less likely to save less. This also accounts
for higher educated people. Households that had to economize saved less money, which also applies
to households that had more savings money already. These households with more savings money
built up a buffer, thus could afford saving less in tougher financial times. From the interviews, it
proved that people think only the households with people fired or hit hard in another way are
actually going to save less money. There is also a small part that saves more money than before the
economic stagnation. This probably involves people not hit by the crisis at all, because in general
people save less than before.
Considering health, there are some conclusions that can be drawn. Firstly, there is no significant
difference between people’s health five years ago and now. Still, 40 people are less healthy now than
they were before and 39 are equally healthy. The income and financial management skills of people
partly determine this. A higher income often causes people to be more happy now than five years
ago. The same applies to financial management skills. If people manage their finances in a structured
way, they are more happy now. This answers sub-question four: ‘Has the period of economic
stagnation had any effect on the health of Dutch households?’ One can conclude that health only for
a small part is affected by the economic stagnation.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Lastly, sub-question five was: ‘How did the period of economic stagnation affect the happiness of the
Dutch households?’. In contrary to what literature predicted, the majority of respondents was
happier now than five years ago. The average happiness grade respondents gave themselves
increased from 7.6 to 7.9 and significantly differed. Having a paid job negatively affected people’s
happiness now compared to five years ago, whereas more debt (mostly mortgage debts) affected
people’s current state of happiness in a positive way. People with a higher income spend more
money on mortgages, so this explains why this is a positive correlation. In conclusion, the economic
stagnation did not affect people as much as expected. Households became happier, even though the
consequences varied between households.
Table 5.1: Confirmed hypotheses
Confirmed hypotheses:
H1: Due to the period of economic stagnation, households spend less money than they did
before this period.
H4: Households are happier at this moment than they were 5 years ago.
Table 5.2: Rejected hypotheses
Rejected hypotheses:
H2: Due to the period of economic stagnation, households have more debt than they did
before this period.
H3: Due to the period of economic stagnation, households save less money than they did
before this period.
H5: Household members are less healthy now than they were five years ago.
H6: Households are more positive about their current situation than about the situation
before.
H6: Households are more positive about their current situation than about the situation
before.
H7: Households that apply financial management competencies are less affected by the
economic stagnation.
H8: Households with a higher income are less affected by the economic stagnation.
H9: Households with a higher level of education are less affected by the economic stagnation.
H6: Households are happier at this moment than they were 5 years ago.{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
In conclusion, households have definitely dealt with the period of economic stagnation in their own
way. Not every household was directly affected by it, although a lot of households still adjusted their
behaviour. They economized more, especially on luxury goods and services. In addition, they saved
less money and occasionally borrowed money from friends or family, but their debts generally did
not increase. These changes in behaviour still caused people to be more happy now than five years
ago, when the Netherlands was in the hardest part of the period of economic stagnation. The health
of the households members did not change a lot, which means the crisis did not affect people’s
ability to take care of themselves and spend on healthcare. What has to be taken in to account, is
that some rejected hypotheses did have a tendency towards a certain result. For example, a fairly
large part of all respondents (36 percent) saved less because of the period of economic stagnation,
although the hypothesis was rejected. The same is the case with hypothesis seven, where some
financial competencies did affect people’s behaviour. The tendency is that people that apply their
financial competencies are less affected by the economic stagnation, even though the hypothesis is
rejected. Lastly, net income significantly affects two out of six dependent variables. Because this is
not even half of all variables, hypothesis nine is rejected. Still, it does show that one’s income affects
a household in times of economic stagnation. The hypothesis were tested strictly, thus only getting
accepted with convincing results.
In this thesis, I have tried to analyse the behaviour and especially the changes in behaviour of Dutch
households due to the period of economic stagnation. A combination of literature research,
qualitative and quantitative analyses was used to see whether changes took place and what caused
them. In this part, the possibilities and limitations of this research will be briefly discussed.
Firstly, it was hard to find literature specifically about the period of economic stagnation starting in
2008. In general, authors that write about a certain period of crisis tend to publish after specific
period is over. Most recent data are about the period between 2008 and 2013, because the years
after 2013 are not analysed yet. This applies to quantitative data like the CBS data, but also counts
for the literature and theories behind contemporary financial problems. And if a certain article was
about the current period of economic stagnation, it did not relate to the Netherlands but another
country in Europe or the United States.
Still, by analysing the situations in the rest of Europe and the United States, a comparison can be
made with the Netherlands. These Western countries are different of course, but also have a lot in
common. By looking at what happened in other countries, I could make an estimate about the results
of the questionnaire and interview with people of the Netherlands. By doing this, the hypotheses
could be determined and the basis of the research was created.
People are not very eager to talk about their financial problems in depth, which is why the qualitative
part turned out quite small. To give a more in depth image of interviewee’s opinions about
household behaviour in periods of economic stagnation, more interviews should be conducted.
These interviews should be semi-structured, to get the total image of what a certain interviewee
thinks. There are certain questions that should be answered, but there should also be space for own
opinions and side-notes by interviewees.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Furthermore, 111 respondents that answered the Qualtrics questionnaire is a decent number. Still,
to get even more representative results, a bigger group of respondents is needed. In this research,
the majority of people that filled in the questionnaire were high educated people with a paid job.
This is not representative for the population of the Netherlands, where a far lower percentage is high
educated. These higher educated people give another image of how Dutch households act compared
to the average Dutch household. The researcher distributed the survey amongst as many people as
possible, not knowing that the majority of people he was addressing was above-average educated.
Also, the number of respondents that was older than 65 years is low, which does not give
representative results. Especially these days ageing is a very big problem in European societies, so a
small group of elderly does not give results that match with the Dutch population. The questionnaire
did however involve people from all kinds of situations. There were people with fulltime jobs, part
time jobs, unemployed people, retired people and students. This gives a good image of how different
situations possibly cause different answers to certain questions.
To further analyse how Dutch households cope or fail to cope with problems due to the economic
stagnation, more research is needed. Once the Netherlands has really ‘solved the crisis’, the big
picture can be created and final conclusions can be drawn. Then can be determined how households
of a certain level of income, education, job situation and more have to cope with problems arising
from financial recession. Since a lot of things are still happening as a consequence of the crisis (e.g.
the Panama Papers), the analysing of Dutch households can be a research with no specific goal. The
behaviour of people and households is a continuously changing process, wherein every single person
reacts differently when confronted with problems or opportunities.
To give a good overview ow how Dutch households behave, every few years this kind of research
should be done. The results of this research could then be compared with researches from other
countries in Europe to see who copes with problems the best and how they actually do it. In this way,
countries can learn from each other. With the recent exit of the United Kingdom out of the European
Union, there will be economic uncertainty in Europe again. The consequences are not clear yet at this
moment, but it might affect Dutch households and their behaviour. This would also be interesting to
look at in a few months.
The Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) predicts a more positive future for the
Netherlands in the upcoming two years. The GDP rises with 1.8 percent in 2016 and with 2.1 percent
in 2017. Also, unemployment is expected to decrease from 6.9 percent in 2015 to 6.2 percent in
2017. Inflation expectations are low, with only 0.1 percent this year and 0.9 percent in 2017 (CPB,
2016). What has to be taken into account is that the exit of the United Kingdom from the European
Union is considered in these predictions. This makes these predictions a bit more unreliable and
creates a lot of uncertainty for European and also Dutch households in the future.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
References
Abbott, M., Schroeder, J., & Wärneryd, K.-E. (2000). The psychology of saving: A study on economic
psychology: JSTOR.
Alessie, R., Lusardi, A., & Kapteyn, A. (1999). Saving after retirement: evidence from three different
surveys. Labour Economics, 6(2), 277-310.
Anna van der Schors, M. v. d. W., Gea Schonewille. (2015). Geldzaken in de Praktijk. NIBUD. from
http://www.nibud.nl/wp-content/uploads/Geldzaken-in-de-praktijk-2015.pdf
Antonides, G., de Groot, I. M., & van Raaij, W. F. (2011). Mental budgeting and the management of
household finance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(4), 546-555.
Aytaç, I. A., Rankin, B. H., & İbikoğlu, A. (2014). The Social Impact of the 2008 Global Economic Crisis
on Neighbourhoods, Households, and Individuals in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 1-19.
Bijl, R., Boelhouwer, J., Cloïn, M., & Pommer, E. (2011). De sociale staat van Nederland 2011: Sociaal
en Cultureel Planbureau.
Brigham, E., & Houston, J. (2011). Fundamentals of financial management: Cengage Learning.
Brown, J. R., Kling, J. R., Mullainathan, S., & Wrobel, M. V. (2008). Why don't people insure late life
consumption: A framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Brown, S. (2015). Household repayment behaviour and neighbourhood effects. Urban Studies, 52(6),
1169-1188. doi: 10.1177/0042098014533393
Bryant, W. K., & Zick, C. D. (2005). The economic organization of the household: Cambridge
University Press.
Bucher-Koenen, T., & Ziegelmeyer, M. (2014). Once burned, twice shy? Financial literacy and wealth
losses during the financial crisis. Review of Finance, 18(6), 2215-2246.
Campos, R. G., & Reggio, I. (2015). Consumption in the shadow of unemployment. European
Economic Review, 78, 39-54.
Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS), 2016.
Central Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, 2016.
http://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/omnidownload/CPB-Policy-Brief-2016-05-Juniraming-2016.pdf
Cornelisse-Vermaat, J. R., Antonides, G., Van Ophem, J. A., & Van Den Brink, H. M. (2006). Body mass
index, perceived health, and happiness: Their determinants and structural relationships. Social
Indicators Research, 79(1), 143-158.
Deaton, A. (1986). Life-cycle models of consumption: Is the evidence consistent with the theory? :
National Bureau of Economic Research.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Deaton, A. (2013). The great escape. Health, wealth and the origins of inequalityPrinceton University
Press, Princeton.
Fisher, P. J. (2010). Income uncertainty and household saving in the United States. Family and
Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(1), 57-74.
Fonds Psychologische Gezondheid. (2013). Stress. http://www.psychischegezondheid.nl/stressoverspannenheid-burnout
Furnham, A. (1985). Why do people save? Attitudes to, and habits of saving money in Britain. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 15(5), 354-373.
Gesthuizen, M. (2011). De gevolgen van de economische crisis voor 'gemiddeld Nederland'. Mens en
Maatschappij, vol. 86, iss. 1, (2011), pp. 2-4
Gili, M., Roca, M., Basu, S., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2013). The mental health risks of economic
crisis in Spain: evidence from primary care centres, 2006 and 2010. The European Journal of Public
Health, 23(1), 103-108.
Graham, C., & Felton, A. (2006). Inequality and happiness: insights from Latin America. The Journal of
Economic Inequality, 4(1), 107-122.
Harvard Business Review, 2010. https://hbr.org/2010/05/when-youve-got-to-cut-costs-now
Heath, C., & Soll, J. B. (1996). Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 40-52.
Hochguertel, S. (2003). Precautionary motives and portfolio decisions. Journal of Applied
Econometrics, 18(1), 61-77.
Hoeve, M., Jurrius, K., Zouwen, M., Vergeer, M., Voogt, M., & Stams, G. (2011). In de schuld, in de
fout? : Kohnstamm Instituut (ism Stichting Alexander).
Horioka, C. Y., & Watanabe, W. (1997). WHY DO PEOPLE SAVE? A MICRO‐ANALYSIS OF MOTIVES FOR
HOUSEHOLD SAVING IN JAPAN*. The Economic Journal, 107(442), 537-552.
Hurd, M. D., & Rohwedder, S. (2010). Effects of the financial crisis and great recession on American
households: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jungmann, N. (2014). Onoplosbare schuldsituaties: NVVK. Hogeschool Utrecht.
Karanikolos, M., Mladovsky, P., Cylus, J., Thomson, S., Basu, S., Stuckler, D., . . . McKee, M. (2013).
Financial crisis, austerity, and health in Europe. The Lancet, 381(9874), 1323-1331.
Karlsson, N., Dellgran, P., Klingander, B., & Gärling, T. (2004). Household consumption: Influences of
aspiration level, social comparison, and money management. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6),
753-769.
Kaytaz, M., & Gul, M. C. (2014). Consumer response to economic crisis and lessons for marketers:
The Turkish experience. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2701-2706.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Klok, P. (2015). Financiële stress en gezondheid. BSc thesis bachelor Health and Society. Wageningen
University.
Lusardi, A. (1998). On the importance of the precautionary saving motive. The American Economic
Review, 88(2), 449-453.
Mak, V. (2015). What is Responsible Lending? The EU Consumer Mortgage Credit Directive in the UK
and the Netherlands. Journal of Consumer Policy, 38(4), 411-430.
Marmot, M., & Bell, R. (2009). How will the financial crisis affect health? BMJ, 338.
Mohanty, M. S. (2014). What determines happiness? Income or attitude: Evidence from the US
longitudinal data. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 7(2), 80.
Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & van den Elskamp, I. (2013). Schaarste: hoe gebrek aan tijd en geld ons
gedrag bepalen: Maven Publishing.
Nationaal Kompas (2014). http://www.nationaalkompas.nl/bevolking/sociaaleconomischestatus/wat-is-sociaaleconomische-status/
Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (2009). Global imbalances and the financial crisis: products of common
causes.
Onderwijs in cijfers (2010).
http://www.onderwijsincijfers.nl/kengetallen/sectoroverstijgend/internationaal/opleidingsniveaubevolking
Schilder, F., & Conijn, J. (2013). Verhuizen in de crisis. Amsterdam School of Real Estate, Amsterdam.
Schunk, D. (2009). What determines household saving behaviour? An examination of saving motives
and saving decisions. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 467-491.
Selye, H. (2013). Stress in health and disease: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tamara Madern, D. v. d. B. (2012). Geldzaken in de praktijk. from http://www.nibud.nl/wpcontent/uploads/Rapport-2012-Geldzaken-in-de-praktijk-2011-2012.pdf
Taylor, J. B. (2009). The financial crisis and the policy responses: An empirical analysis of what went
wrong: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Trading Economics (2016). Turkish unemployment rate.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/turkey/unemployment-rate
Ulfarsson, G. F., Steinbrenner, A., Valsson, T., & Kim, S. (2015). Urban household travel behaviour in a
time of economic crisis: Changes in trip making and transit importance. Journal of Transport
Geography, 49, 68-75.
Urbonavicius, S., & Pikturniene, I. (2010). CONSUMERS IN THE FACE OF ECONOMIC CRISIS: EVIDENCE
FROM TWO GENERATIONS IN LITHUANIA. Economics & Management.
Van Ophem, J. A. C. (1988). Huishoudens en inkomensdaling.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Weinberg, J. A. (2006). Borrowing by US households. FRB Richmond Economic Quarterly, 92(3), 177194.
World Health Organization(2003). Definition of health.
http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html
Worldbank. (2016). Global economic prospects. http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globaleconomic-prospects
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendices
Appendix 1 – The situation in the Netherlands
GDP (Gross Domestic
1
Product) x 1 million
Disposable income
2
(per household)
3
Inflation (CPI)
Percentage of
households with
4
financial problems
Unemployment rate
5
(15-75 years old)
Percentage of absence
6
because of illness
Increase in rent of
7
houses
Price index houses
8
(2010=100)
2000
448 061
2001
476 696
2002
494 501
2003
506 671
2004
523 939
2005
545 609
2006
579 212
2007
613 280
2008
639 163
2009
617 540
2010
631 512
2011
642 929
2012
645 164
2013
650 857
2014
662 770
€25 300
€27 500
€28 300
€28 300
€29 000
€29 400
€30 600
€32 000
€33 100
€33 300
€33 200
€33 300
€33 300
€33 600
€34 200
2,6%
4,5%
3,4%
2,1%
1,2%
1,7%
1,1%
1,6%
2,5%
1,2%
1,3%
2,3%
2,5%
2,5%
1,0%
23%
21%
22%
28%
28%
34%
30%
28%
27%
27%
29%
30%
No data
No data
No data
3,7%
3,5%
4,1%
4,8%
5,7%
5,9%
5,0%
4,2%
3,7%
4,4%
5,0%
5,0%
5,8%
7,3%
7,8%
5,5%
5,5%
5,4%
4,7%
4,2%
4,1%
4,2%
4,2%
4,1%
4,1%
4,2%
4,2%
4,0%
3,9%
3,8%
2,6%
2,7%
2,9%
3,2%
3,1%
2,0%
2,7%
1,4%
1,9%
2,8%
1,6%
1,8%
2,8%
4,7%
4,4%
71,1
79,0
84,0
87,1
90,8
94,4
98,7
102,8
105,9
102,3
100,0
97,6
91,3
85,3
86,1
1
From CBS – ‘Opbouw binnenlands product (bbp); nationale rekeningen’, 2015
From CBS – ‘Gemiddeld inkomen; particuliere huishoudens naar diverse kenmerken', 2015
3
From CBS – ‘Consumentenprijzen; inflatie vanaf 1963’, 2015
4
From CBS – ‘Financiële problemen, huishoudens 2000-2011’, 2015 (no data available from 2012, 2013 and 2014)
5
From CBS – ‘Arbeidsdeelname en werkloosheid per maand’, 2015
6
From CBS – ‘Ziekteverzuimpercentage; bedrijfstakken (SBI 2008) en bedrijfsgrootte’, 2015
7
From CBS – ‘Consumentenprijzen; huurverhoging woningen vanaf 1959’, 2015
8
From CBS – ‘Bestaande koopwoningen; verkoopprijzen prijsindex 2010 = 100’, 2015
2
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Purchasing power of
households (with
9
multiple persons)
Percentage of
households with
income up to 100% of
10
low-income line
Total private savings
in bank accounts (x 1
11
million euro)
Percentage of people
that went on holiday
at least 1 time per
12
year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
No data
+5,2%
+1,6%
+0,1%
+0,8%
-0,2%
+3,1%
+3,3%
+1,5%
+1,7%
-0,7%
-0,7%
-1,3%
-1,2%
+1,4%
11,5%
9,1%
8,6%
9,2%
8,8%
9,2%
8,3%
7,2%
7,1%
7,2%
7,0%
7,7%
8,8%
9,7%
No data
130 345
134 245
152 887
167 766
185 094
201 718
210 968
221 339
237 131
251 258
284 095
290 775
306 341
323 046
325 307
79,4%
79,2%
80,8%
81,8%
81,2%
80,8%
80,5%
80,7%
81,6%
81,3%
81,5%
81,9%
81,4%
81,0%
79,5%
Note: The CBS releases certain data a few years after the actual research is done. This is the reason why for some years, no data is available.
9
From CBS – ‘Dynamische koopkrachtontwikkeling; overgangen van samenstelling huishouden’
From CBS – ‘Laag en langdurig laag inkomen; particuliere huishoudens naar kenmerken’
11
From CBS – ‘Spaartegoeden’
12
From CBS – ‘Vakanties; kerncijfers’
10
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 2 – Consequences of economic stagnation and coping strategies in Turkey
Husband worked more than one job
Husband first time job
Wife worked more than 1 job
Wife first time job
Child started working for money
Child household work increased
Family moved to cheaper housing
Family moved in with relatives
Relative moved away in search of work
Postponed childbearing
Cut back on vacations
Cut back on visits to relatives
Cut back on purchase of new clothes
Switched to cheaper foods
Consumed less meats
Cut back on going out
Bought fewer books, CD’s, videos, etc.
Switched to cheaper household goods
Cancellation of internet, phone or cable
Cut back on transportation costs
Sold assets to cover living expenses
Sold or traded in car for cheaper model
Debt increased
Source: Aytaç et al., 2014
% using coping strategy
12,1
9,3
7,2
25,4
3,9
4,0
13,3
3,0
6,1
8,1
48,3
39,4
57,6
52,8
58,9
40,3
34,7
52,6
28,8
42,6
22,5
16,2
23,2
% due to economic crisis
79,8
72,0
61,5
72,1
88,6
55,6
71,3
76,1
73,3
68,7
79,8
82,2
80,3
82,0
82,2
81,2
83,4
82,0
79,2
83,6
78,7
69,1
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 3 – Reasons for financial problems
Reason why consumer has a hard time making ends meet
% of people of which
it applies to
40
38
35
27
18
18
12
6
3
5
Expenditures rise and income stays the same
Income too low
Fixed costs too high
Income decreased
Disease (higher costs as a consequence)
Debt
Loss of subsidies (due to government measures)
Spending more than is possible
Partner spends money too easily
Other
Source: ‘Geldzaken in de praktijk’ (van der Schors, 2015)
Appendix 4 – Financial competencies
2012
None of the
competencies
1 of the 3
competencies
2 of the 3
competencies
All competencies
Hard time making
ends meet (%)
Neutral (%)
Easy time making
ends meet (%)
Total (%)
42
19
7
19
32
33
24
31
20
36
44
36
6
12
26
14
6
14
26
33
41
36
28
17
2015
None of the
26
15
competencies
1 of the 3
39
35
competencies
2 of the 3
27
37
competencies
All competencies
8
14
Source: ‘Geldzaken in de praktijk’, (van der Schors, 2015)
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 5 - Savings
I do not have any money saved
I have less than 500 euro saved
I have 500 to 1000 euro saved
I have 1000 to 2500 euro saved
I have 2500 to 5000 euro saved
I have 5000 to 10000 euro saved
I have 10000 to 25000 euro saved
I have 25000 to 50000 euro saved
I have 50000 to 100000 euro saved
I have 100000 to 500000 euro saved
I have more than 500000 euro saved
I don’t know how much money I have saved
I don’t want to say how much money I have saved
Source: ‘Geldzaken in de praktijk’, (van der Schors, 2015)
Total % (N=2834)
15
9
6
7
8
9
9
6
4
3
1
4
22
Appendix 6 – Loans and debts
No loans
In overdraft on checking account
Loan bank or investment firm
College debt
Repayment schedule
Loan from family or friends
Debt on creditcard
Bought something on credit
Loan at postorder company or online shop
Loan via employer
Other
Does not want to say
Does not know
Source: ‘Geldzaken in de praktijk’, (van der Schors, 2015)
2012 in %
53
22
18
7
10
10
8
5
4
1
1
5
4
2015 in %
53
20
16
9
9
8
8
5
4
1
1
3
1
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 7 - Qualtrics questionnaire Dutch
Bedankt dat u wilt meewerken aan dit onderzoek naar de financiële situatie van huishoudens voor,
na en tijdens een periode van economische stagnatie. Met 'de periode van economische stagnatie'
wordt de periode vanaf 2008 bedoeld, waarin de economie slechter werd. Alle gegevens zullen
volledig anoniem worden verwerkt en voor geen andere doeleinden worden gebruikt dan voor dit
onderzoek.
Wat is uw huishoudsamenstelling?





1 persoon (u zelf)
Een (echt)paar met niet-thuiswonende kinderen
Een (echt) paar met inwonende kinderen
Een (echt)paar zonder kinderen
1 ouder met inwonende kinderen
Wat is uw leeftijd?
Wat is de hoogste opleiding die u heeft afgemaakt?





Lagere school
Middelbare school (algemeen vormend)
Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO, MTS)
Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO, HTS)
Universiteit (WO)
Welk niveau middelbare school heeft u gedaan?




VMBO/MAVO
HAVO
VWO
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Wat is de leeftijd van uw partner?
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Wat is de hoogste opleiding die uw partner heeft afgemaakt?





Lagere school
Middelbare school (algemeen vormend)
Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO, MTS)
Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO, HTS)
Universiteit (WO)
Welk niveau middelbare school heeft u gedaan?




VMBO/MAVO
HAVO
VWO
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Welke situatie is voor u van toepassing?












Betaalde baan >32 uur per week
Betaalde baan tussen de 15 en 32 uur per week
Betaalde baan
Betaalde baan met een variërende hoeveelheid uren per week
Werkloos met WW uitkering
Bijstand
WAO
Gepensioneerd
Studerend
Vrijwilligerswerk
Huisvrouw of huisman zonder ander werk
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Wat voor soort contract heeft u?





Vast contract (onbepaalde tijd)
1 jaar contract
Ik ben ZZP'er
Contract op oproepbasis
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Welke situatie is voor uw partner van toepassing?












Betaalde baan van meer dan 32 uur per week
Betaalde baan tussen de 15 en 32 uur per week
Betaalde baan minder dan 15 uur per week
Betaalde baan met een variërende hoeveelheid uren per week
Werkloos met WW uitkering
Bijstand
WAO
Gepensioneerd
Studerend
Vrijwilligerswerk
Huisvrouw of huisman zonder ander werk
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Wat voor soort contract heeft uw partner?





Vast contract (onbepaalde tijd)
1 jaar contract
Ik ben ZZP'er
Contract op oproepbasis
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Hoe let u op de financiën van uw huishouden? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)





Begrotingen (bepaalde hoeveelheid geld aan iets toewijzen)
Boodschappenlijstjes
Regelmatig checken van saldo op de rekening
Bijhouden wat er binnenkomt op de rekening en wat er wanneer betaald wordt
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Hoe vaak bekijkt u uw saldo (gemiddeld)?






Dagelijks
Twee keer per week
Wekelijks
Één keer per twee weken
Maandelijks
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Vergelijkt u verschillende winkels of websites voor het kopen van een product?
 Ja, bij vrijwel alle producten die ik koop (naast boodschappen)
 Ja, maar alleen bij grote aankopen (meubels, televisie etc.)
 Nee, ik vergelijk vrijwel nooit
Hoe vaak staat u rood per jaar?




Vaker dan 10 keer per jaar
Tussen de 5 en 10 keer per jaar
1 á 2 keer per jaar
Nooit
Hoe vaak heeft uw huishouden problemen met het betalen van rekeningen binnen de afgesproken
limiet?




Vaker dan 10 keer per jaar
Tussen de 5 en 10 keer per jaar
1 á 2 keer per jaar
Nooit
Hoe vaak heeft uw huishouden problemen met het betalen van producten die u nodig heeft?
(bijvoorbeeld door een te laag saldo op de rekening)




Vaker dan 10 keer per jaar
Tussen de 5 en 10 keer per jaar
1 á 2 keer per jaar
Nooit
Hoeveel spaargeld heeft uw huishouden? Dit gaat dus om het spaargeld van u en uw eventuele
partner (mocht u dit niet precies weten, graag een schatting geven).








Tussen de 0 en 500 euro.
Tussen de 500 en 1000 euro.
Tussen de 1000 en 5000 euro.
Tussen de 5000 en 10 000 euro
Tussen de 10 000 en 25 000 euro
Tussen de 25 000 en 50 000 euro.
Tussen de 50 000 en 100 000 euro.
Meer dan 100 000 euro.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Is het spaargedrag van uw huishouden veranderd in tijden van economische stagnatie (sinds 2008)?
 Ja, ik heb tijdens de periode van economische stagnatie meer gespaard dan daarvoor.
 Ja, ik heb tijdens de periode van economische stagnatie minder gespaard dan daarvoor.
 Nee, ik heb tijdens de periode van economische stagnatie ongeveer evenveel gespaard als
daarvoor.
Heeft uw huishouden 1 of meerdere van onderstaande schulden? Zo ja, welke?







Lening bij een bank
Lening bij een investeringsmaatschappij
Lening bij vrienden of familie
Hypotheek
Studieschuld
Anders, namelijk.. ____________________
Mijn huishouden heeft geen schulden.
Hoe hoog zijn de schulden van uw huishouden bij elkaar opgeteld ongeveer? (mocht u dit niet
precies weten, graag een schatting geven).









Tussen de 0 en 500 euro
Tussen de 500 en 2000 euro
Tussen de 2000 en 10 000 euro
Tussen de 10 000 en 25 000 euro
Tussen de 25 000 en 50 000 euro
Tussen de 50 000 en 100 000 euro
Tussen de 100 000 en 200 000 euro
Tussen de 200 000 en 500 000 euro
Meer dan 500 000 euro
Zijn de schulden van uw huishouden hoger dan voor de periode van economische stagnatie?
 Ja, deze zijn hoger
 Nee, deze zijn ongeveer gelijk gebleven
 Nee, deze zijn juist lager dan voor de periode van economische stagnatie
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
De volgende statements gaan over eventuele veranderingen in gedrag, veroorzaakt door de periode
van economische stagnatie. Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende stellingen op uw huishouden van
toepassing zijn.
Volledig mee
oneens
Redelijk mee
oneens
Neutraal
Redelijk mee
eens
Volledig mee
eens
Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op dagjes weg,
feestjes geven of
activiteiten als
naar de bioscoop
gaan.





Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op uit eten gaan
(of naar
goedkopere
eetgelegenheden
gaan als vorm
van besparen).





Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op vakanties
(minder vaak,
korter of
goedkopere
locaties).





Mijn huishouden
heeft hobby's
moeten
aanpassen
(andere hobby's,
hobby's minder
regelmatig
doen).





Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
door goedkoper
te gaan wonen of
door niet te
verhuizen waar
ik dat eerst wel
van plan was.





Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op mijn
energiekosten
(door over te
stappen, andere
soorten energie
te gebruiken of
beter op mijn
verbruik te





{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
letten).
Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op de dagelijkse
boodschappen
(andere merken,
alleen kopen wat
echt nodig is).





Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op kleding
(goedkopere
winkels,
tweedehands
kleding).





Mijn huishouden
heeft bezuinigd
op mobiele
telefoon kosten
(goedkoper
abonnement,
goedkopere
telefoon).





Heeft uw huishouden nog moeten besparen op andere producten, activiteiten of diensten?
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
De volgende vragen gaan over de gevolgen van de periode van economische stagnatie (sinds 2008).
Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende stellingen op uw huishouden van toepassing zijn.
Volledig mee
oneens
Redelijk mee
oneens
Neutraal
Redelijk mee
eens
Volledig mee
eens
Ik ben bezorgd
geweest voor de
gevolgen van de
periode van
economische
stagnatie op
mijn
huishouden.





De periode van
economische
stagnatie heeft
mij of iemand
anders uit mijn
huishouden
stress bezorgd.





Sinds 2008 zijn
er onverwachte
hoge uitgaven
geweest voor
mijn
huishouden
(ziektekosten
bijvoorbeeld).





Het is nu een
goede tijd om
dure producten
te kopen, zoals
meubels, een
TV of een
wasmachine.





Het is nu een
goede tijd om
geld te sparen.





Afgelopen jaar
is de
economische
situatie in
Nederland beter
geworden.





De huidige
financiële
situatie van mijn
huishouden is
beter dan de
situatie 5 jaar
geleden.





De komende
jaren zal het





{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
met mijn
huishouden
beter gaan dan
de afgelopen
jaren.
Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende stelling op u van toepassing is.
Nee, nooit
Maakt u zich wel
eens zorgen om de
financiële situatie
van uw
huishouden?

Nee, meestal niet
Ja, meestal wel


Ja, altijd

Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende stelling op u van toepassing is.
Heel ontevreden
Hoe tevreden bent
u met de financiële
situatie van uw
huishouden
momenteel?

Ontevreden
Tevreden


Heel tevreden

Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende stelling op u van toepassing is.
Nee, zeker niet
Verwacht u dat het
inkomen van uw
huishouden in de
komende 6
maanden lager
wordt?

Nee, waarschijnlijk
niet
Ja, waarschijnlijk
wel


Ja, zeker wel

Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende stelling op u van toepassing is.
Nee, (bijna) nooit
Lukt het uw
huishouden om al
uw rekeningen
binnen de
afgesproken
limieten te betalen?

Nee, meestal niet

Ja, meestal wel

Ja, altijd

{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Geef aan wat voor u van toepassing is.
Op een schaal van 1 tot 10, hoe gelukkig was u 5 jaar geleden? (1 is zeer ongelukkig, 10 is zeer
gelukkig)
Op een schaal van 1 tot 10, hoe gezond was u 5 jaar geleden? (1 is helemaal niet gezond, 10 is zeer
gezond)
Op een schaal van 1 tot 10, hoe gelukkig bent u nu? (1 is zeer ongelukkig, 10 is zeer gelukkig)
Op een schaal van 1 tot 10, hoe gezond bent u nu? (1 is helemaal niet gezond, 10 is zeer gezond)
Wat het maandelijks netto inkomen van uw totale huishouden? Dit gaat dus om het inkomen van u
en uw eventuele partner (mocht u dit niet precies weten, graag een schatting geven).










Minder dan 1000 euro
Tussen de 1000 en 1500 euro
Tussen de 1500 en 2000 euro
Tussen de 2000 en 2500 euro
Tussen de 2500 en 3000 euro
Tussen de 3000 en 3500 euro
Tussen de 3500 en 4000 euro
Tussen de 4000 en 4500 euro
Tussen de 4500 en 5000 euro
Meer dan 5000 euro
Hoe hoog zou het maandelijks netto inkomen van uw huishouden moeten liggen om 'normaal' rond
te kunnen komen?










Minder dan 1000 euro
Tussen de 1000 en 1500 euro
Tussen de 1500 en 2000 euro
Tussen de 2000 en 2500 euro
Tussen de 2500 en 3000 euro
Tussen de 3000 en 3500 euro
Tussen de 3500 en 4000 euro
Tussen de 4000 en 4500 euro
Tussen de 4500 en 5000 euro
Meer dan 5000 euro
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Welke van de volgende stellingen zijn op uw huishouden van toepassing?
Nee
Ja
Mijn huishouden heeft vermogen
in de vorm van obligaties.


Mijn huishouden heeft vermogen
in de vorm van een tweede huis.


Mijn huishouden heeft vermogen
in de vorm van aandelen.


Mijn huishouden heeft een
pensioen opgebouwd.


Mijn huishouden heeft een eigen
auto.


Mijn huishouden heeft in de
periode sinds 2008 een
echtscheiding gehad.


Iemand van mijn huishouden is in
de periode sinds 2008 onvrijwillig
werkloos geweest.


Mijn huishouden is in de periode
sinds 2008 minder moeten gaan
werken (wegens bezuinigingen bij
werkgever).


In de afgelopen 5 jaar zijn 1 of
meer kinderen uit huis gegaan.


In de afgelopen 5 jaar zijn er 1 of
meer kinderen in huis bij gekomen
(geboorte van kind, adoptie of
weer thuis komen wonen).


In de afgelopen 5 jaar is een
volwassene van mijn huishouden
uit huis gegaan (door echtscheiding
bijvoorbeeld)


In de afgelopen 5 jaar is er een
volwassene in mijn huishouden bij
gekomen (door het intrekken van
nieuwe partner bijvoorbeeld).


Zou u kort kunnen samenvatten hoe de periode van economische stagnatie (sinds 2008) van invloed
is geweest op uw huishouden?
Vergeet niet op de pijl te klikken om het onderzoek te verzenden! Dit was de vragenlijst. Nogmaals,
alle resultaten worden anoniem verwerkt en alleen gebruik voor dit onderzoek. Hartelijk bedankt
voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek! Mocht u interesse hebben in resultaten of uitkomsten of heeft
u vragen, dan kunt u mailen naar [email protected].
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 8 – Qualtrics questionnaire English
Thank you for cooperating with this research about the financial situation of households before, after
and during the period of economic stagnation. By ‘period of economic stagnation’, the period
starting in 2008 is meant. During this period, the economy worsened. All answers will be used
anonymously and will only be used for this research.
What is your household composition?





1 person (you)
Couple with children that don’t live at home
Couple with children that live at home
Couple without children
1 parent with children living at home
What is your age?
What is the highest level of education that you have finished?





Primary school
Secondary school
Intermediate vocational education (MBO, MTS)
Higher vocational education (HBO, HTS)
University (WO)
What level of secondary school did you follow?




VMBO/MAVO
HAVO
VWO
Other, ____________________
What is your partner’s age?
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
What is the highest level of education that your partner has finished





Primary school
Secondary school
Intermediate vocational education (MBO, MTS)
Higher vocational education (HBO, HTS)
University (WO)
What level of secondary school did your partner follow?




VMBO/MAVO
HAVO
VWO
Other, ____________________
Which situation applies to you?












Paid job >32 hours per week
Paid job between 15 and 32 hours per week
Paid job <15 hours per week
Paid job with an irregular amount of hours per week
Unemployed with social benefits
Welfare system
Disablement insurance
Retired
Studying
Voluntary work
Housewife or houseman without another job
Other, ____________________
What kind of contract do you have?





Contract with unspecified duration
1 year contract
Freelancer
Contract on call
Other, ____________________
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Which situation applies to your partner?












Paid job >32 hours per week
Paid job between 15 and 32 hours per week
Paid job <15 hours per week
Paid job with an irregular amount of hours per week
Unemployed with social benefits
Welfare system
Disablement insurance
Retired
Studying
Voluntary work
Housewife or houseman without another job
Other, ____________________
What kind of contract does your partner have?





Contract with unspecified duration
1 year contract
Freelancer
Contract on call
Other, ____________________
How do you manage your household’s finances?
Budgets (dedicate a certain amount of money to something)
Grocery shopping lists
Checking your accounts’ balances
Keeping track of bills and when money comes in or goes out
Other, ____________________
How often do you check your bank account’s balance (on average)?






Daily
Twice a week
Weekly
Once per 2 weeks
Monthly
Other, ____________________
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Do you compare different websites or stores before buying a product?
 Yes, I do this with almost every product I buy (except for normal groceries)
 Yes, but only with big expenditures (furniture, television etc.)
 No, I almost never compare
How often are you in overdraft?




More than 10 times a year
Between 5 and 10 times a year
Once or twice a year
Never
How often does your household have problems paying bills within the allowed time limit?




More than 10 times a year
Between 5 and 10 times a year
Once or twice a year
Never
How often does your household have problems paying products you need (e.g. by not having enough
money on your account?




More than 10 times a year
Between 5 and 10 times a year
Once or twice a year
Never
How much savings money does your household have? This is about the total amount of money you
(and your partner, if you have one) have together. If you don’t know exactly, please give an
estimation.








Between 0 and 500 euro.
Between 500 and 1000 euro.
Between 1000 and 5000 euro.
Between 5000 and 10 000 euro
Between 10 000 and 25 000 euro
Between 25 000 and 50 000 euro.
Between 50 000 and 100 000 euro.
More than 100 000 euro.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Has your saving behaviour changed since the beginning of the period of economic stagnation (in
2008)?
 Yes, I have saved more than before the period of economic stagnation.
 Yes, I have saved less than before the period of economic stagnation.
 No, I have saved more or less the same amount of money as before the period of ecnomic
stagnation.
Does your household have 1 or more sorts of debts from the list below? If yes, which ones?
Loan from a bank
Loan from an investment firm
Loan from friends or family
Mortgage
Study debt
Other, ____________________
My household does not have any debts
How high are the debts your household has in total? (if you don’t know exactly, please give an
estimation)









Between 0 and 500 euro
Between 500 and 2000 euro
Between 2000 and 10 000 euro
Between 10 000 and 25 000 euro
Between 25 000 and 50 000 euro
Between 50 000 and 100 000 euro
Between 100 000 and 200 000 euro
Between 200 000 and 500 000 euro
More than 500 000 euro
Have these debts changed due to the period of economic stagnation?
 Yes, these debts are higher than before this period
 No, they are more or less equal to before the period of economic stagnation
 Yes, they are lower than before the period of economic stagnation
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
The following statements are about possible changes in behaviour, caused by the period of economic
stagnation. Please answer by stating if you agree or disagree with the statements.
Completely
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Completely
agree
My household
economized by
spending less
on days out,
giving parties or
activities like
going to the
movies.





My household
economized by
spending less
on going out for
dinner (or going
to cheaper
places as a form
of saving).





My household
economized op
on vacations
(less vacations,
cheaper
locations)





My household
has had to
adjust hobbies
(other hobbies
or doing
hobbies less
often)















My household
economized by
moving to a
cheaper place
or by not
moving while
the initial plan
was to move.
My household
economized by
spending less
on energy costs
(by switching,
using other
types of energy
or paying more
attention to
energy use)
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
My household
economized on
daily groceries
(other brands,
only buying
what was
necessary)





My household
economized by
spending less
on clothes
shopping
(cheaper stores,
second hand
clothes).





My household
economized by
spending less
on mobile
phone costs
(cheaper
contract,
cheaper phone).





Did your household save money on other products or services?
The following questions are about the consequences of the period of economic stagnation (since
2008). Please state if the following statements apply to your household.
Completely
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Completely
agree
I have been
worried about
the
consequences
of the period of
economic
stagnation for
my household.





The period of
economic
stagnation has
caused stress to
me or someone
else from my
household.





Since 2008,
there have been
unexpected
high expenses
for my
household (e.g.
sickness or





{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
accidents).
It is now a good
time to buy
expensive
products, like
furniture, a TV
or a washing
machine.















The current
situation of my
household is
better than 5
years ago.





In the coming
years, my
household will
fare better than
the past few
years.





It is now a good
time to save
money.
The economic
situation in the
Netherlands has
improved last
year.
Please state if the following question applies to you.
No, never
Do you ever worry
about the financial
situation of your
household?

No, not a lot

Yes, most of the
times

Yes, always

{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Please state if the following question applies to you.
Very unsatisfied
How satisfied are
you with the
current financial
situation of your
household?

Unsatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Please state if the following question applies to you.
No, definitely not
Do you expect that
the income of your
household
decreases during
the next 6 months?

No, probably not

Yës, probably

Yes, definitely

Please state if the following question applies to you.
No, (almost) never
Can your household
manage to pay all
necessary bills in
time?

No, not often

Yes, most of the
times

Yes, always

Please answer what applies to you.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how happy were you 5 years ago? (1 is very unhappy, 10 is very happy)
On a scale from 1 to 10, how healthy were you 5 years ago? (1 is very unhealthy, 10 is very healthy)
On a scale from 1 to 10, how happy are you now? (1 is very unhappy, 10 is very happy)
On a scale from 1 to 10, how healthy are you now? (1 is very unhealthy , 10 is very healthy)
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
What is the monthly net income of your household? This relates to the income you (and your partner
if you have one) earn together. If you don’t know exactly, please give an estimation.










Less than 1000 euro
Between 1000 en 1500 euro
Between 1500 and 2000 euro
Between 2000 and 2500 euro
Between 2500 and 3000 euro
Between 3000 and 3500 euro
Between 3500 and 4000 euro
Between 4000 and 4500 euro
Between 4500 and 5000 euro
More than 5000 euro
How high should the monthly net income be to ‘normally’ make ends meet?










Less than 1000 euro
Between 1000 and 1500 euro
Between 1500 and 2000 euro
Between 2000 and 2500 euro
Between 2500 and 3000 euro
Between 3000 and 3500 euro
Between 3500 and 4000 euro
Between 4000 and 4500 euro
Between 4500 and 5000 euro
More than 5000 euro
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Which of the following statements apply to your household=
No
Yes
My household has capital in the
form of obligations.


My household has capital in the
form of a second house.


My household has capital in the
form of stocks.


My household has saved for
retirement.


My household has its own car.


My household has had a divorce in
the period between 2008 and now.


Somebody in my household has
been involuntarily unemployed in
the period between 2008 and now.


My household has had to work less
in the period between 2008 and
now (due to budget cuts from the
employers side).


In the last 5 years, 1 or more
children have left the house.


In the last 5 years, 1 or more
children have entered the
household (childbirth, adoption or
re-entering the household after
having left).


In the last 5 years, an adult has left
the household (e.g. because of a
divorce).


In the last 5 years, an adult has
entered the household (e.g. a new
life partner).


Could you make a short summary about how the period of economic stagnation (since 2008) has
affected your household?
This was the questionnaire. Again, all results are being used anonymously and only for this research.
Thank you very much for participating in this research. If you are interested in results or if you have
questions, you can send an email to { HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]" }.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 9 – Correlations independent variables
‘Household
economization
score’
Education level
Costs/income
ratio >1
Age 18-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-64
Paid job
Making
budgets
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
‘Household
economization
score’
Educatio
n level
Costs/inco
me ratio >1
Age
18-34
Age
35-44
Age
4564
Paid
Job
Making
Budgets
Checking
account
balance
Checkin
g in and
out of
account
Amount of
savings
money
Amount
of debt
Net
income
Household
changes
1
-,229
,369
-,051
,093
,021
,015
,019
,069
,084
-,134
-,432
,126
-,400
104
-,229
,019*
104
1
,000*
102
-,091
,609
104
,192
,350
104
,058
,834
104
-,180
,879
104
,183
,848
104
,184
,487
104
-,019
,395
104
,047
,174
104
-,037
,000*
104
,268
,285
74
,267
,000*
102
,336
,019*
104
,369
111
-,091
,364
102
1
,044*
111
-,047
,547
111
,141
,059
111
-,063
,054
111
-,008
,053
111
,008
,844
111
,046
,622
111
,085
,701
111
-,100
,005*
108
-,269
,021
75
,136
,001*
102
-,295
,000*
102
-,051
,364
102
,192
102
-,047
,640
102
1
,157
102
-,149
,529
102
-,505
,934
102
,041
,934
102
,072
,645
102
-,114
,393
102
,127
,319
102
-,087
,006*
102
-,099
,250
73
,140
,003*
102
-,133
,609
104
,093
,044*
111
,058
,640
102
,141
111
-,149
,117
111
1
,000*
111
-,569
,673
111
-,053
,453
111
-,098
,232
111
-,099
,186
111
,168
,364
111
-,098
,306
108
-,164
,232
75
,013
,181
102
-,024
,350
104
,021
,547
111
-,180
,157
102
-,063
,117
111
-,505
111
-,569
,000*
111
1
,578
111
,118
,304
111
,071
,303
111
,179
,078
111
-,122
,306
111
,172
,091
108
,178
,913
75
-,004
,812
102
,175
,834
104
,015
,059
111
,183
,529
102
-,008
,000*
111
,041
,000*
111
-,053
111
,118
,219
111
1
,460
111
,268
,061
111
,027
,203
111
-,046
,070
111
,019
,066
108
-,142
,970
75
,190
,079
102
,252
,879
104
,019
,054
111
,184
,934
102
,008
,673
111
,072
,578
111
-,098
,219
111
,071
111
,268
,004*
111
1
,781
111
,216
,635
111
,041
,844
111
-,129
,144
108
-,115
,103
75
-,008
,011*
102
,101
,848
104
,053
111
,934
102
,453
111
,304
111
,460
111
,004*
111
111
,023*
111
,669
111
,178
111
,235
108
,943
75
,312
102
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Checking
account
balance
Checking in
and out of
account
Amount of
savings money
Amount of
debt
Net income
Household
changes
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
Pearson
correlation
Significance
N
‘Household
economization
score’
Educatio
n level
Costs/inco
me ratio >1
Age
18-34
Age
35-44
Age
4564
Paid
Job
Making
Budgets
Checking
account
balance
Amount of
savings
money
Amount
of debt
Net
income
Household
changes
1
Checkin
g in and
out of
account
,017
,069
-,019
,046
-,114
-,099
,179
,027
,216
,019
-,157
,054
-,070
,487
104
,084
,844
111
,047
,645
102
,085
,232
111
,127
,303
111
,168
,061
111
-,122
,781
111
-,046
,023
111
,041
111
,017
,858
111
1
,844
111
-,095
,104
108
-,024
,647
75
,121
,484
102
,001
,395
104
-,134
,622
111
-,037
,393
102
-,100
,186
111
-,087
,078
111
-,098
,203
111
,172
,635
111
,019
,669
111
-,129
,858
111
,019
111
-,095
,321
111
1
,808
108
,007
,303
75
-,153
,992
102
,113
,174
104
-,432
,701
111
,268
,319
102
-,269
,364
111
-,099
,306
111
-,164
,070
111
,178
,844
111
-,142
,178
111
-,115
,844
111
-,157
,321
111
-,024
111
,007
,941
108
1
,189
75
,307
,256
102
,396
,000*
104
,126
,005*
108
,267
,006*
102
,136
,306
108
,140
,091
108
,013
,066
108
-,004
,144
108
,190
,235
108
-,008
,104
108
,054
,808
108
,121
,941
108
-,153
108
,307
,007*
75
1
,000*
102
,120
,285
74
-,400
,021*
75
,336
,250
73
-,295
,232
75
-,133
,913
75
-,024
,970
75
,175
,103
75
,252
,943
75
,101
,647
75
-,070
,303
75
,001
,189
75
,113
,007*
75
,396
75
,120
,312
73
1
,000*
102
,001*
102
,003*
102
,181
102
,812
102
,079
102
,011*
102
,312
102
,484
102
,992
102
,256
102
,000*
102
,312
73
102
*= significant at a 0.05 level
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Appendix 10 – Short interviews
Interview 1
This interview was done with someone in age group 45-64, who is in a household with two adults
and children. The interviewee has a part-time job and has had a higher education (HBO).
What consequences of the period of economic stagnation did you see in your environment?
I think more people became unemployed, companies went bankrupt and the chance of successfully
starting up a new company decreased a lot during this period.
Who do you think are affected most by the period of economic stagnation? This can relate to income,
age, education or home situation.
The lower income households, if they suffer any consequences during the economic stagnation
period they will be the ones sitting at home with almost no diploma’s. Also, older people will suffer
more. Companies are not very willing to take in older people, since they will not work at their
company for a very long time.
What do you think people economize on first? Which kinds of products or services will be economized
on last? Why is that?
First on things like holidays, days out, going out for dinner. These are luxury goods, which are not
really necessary. The last kind of product one would economize on are the daily groceries and other
products or services that one uses daily and one cannot live without.
Do you think the economic stagnation affects people’s happiness? Why?
No, because a lot of things will eventually work out. People tend to be smart and find other solutions
to their problems. This can be perforce, but the effect will be the same. They will come up with
alternative ways of getting where they want to be, which will make them stronger in the end.
Do you think the economic stagnation affects people’s health? Why?
Yes, but maybe even in a positive way. Because of the monetary problems some people face, they
will more often be thinking about their life. They will be more conscious about what they buy and
consume and realize that there are certain restraints to their life. Eventually, this might lead to a
healthier lifestyle.
Do you think there are people that have had less money due to the economic stagnation, but that
have not spent less money than before? Why do you think this happens?
There definitely are more debts among people. This can be because people were not willing to or not
able to adjust their consumption pattern to the consequences of the economic stagnation. The
people that are not able to do this and keep on spending will be in a lot of problems during this
period.
Do you think people borrow more money than before the economic stagnation? Did you see this
happening in your environment?
Yes, more people borrow money than before. They will first go to the bank, but banks these days are
not very keen on lending people money. If it is really necessary, a lot of people will then go to friends
or family. Personally, I have not seen this in my environment.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Do you think people manage their finances in a different way than before the economic stagnation?
No, more or less the same. I personally have not suffered a lot from the economic stagnation so
adjusting my own financial management was not necessary. Although, a lot of people are more
conscious of their financial situation and think more about what to buy and what not to buy.
Do you think people save less money during times of economic stagnation? Why?
This depends on the person, because people who are fired will probably save less but people that are
not affected by the economic stagnation will not save less.
Do you think the next few years will be financially better than the situation now?
Yes, although this might take a few years to fully recover. There are still people getting fired and
unemployment does not really decrease as fast as it should be.
Interview 2
This interview was done with someone in age group 45-64, who is in a household with two adults
and no. The interviewee has a fulltime job and has had a lower education (MBO).
What consequences of the period of economic stagnation did you see in your environment?
Mostly people that were fired or could work less due to economizing measures at their employers.
Who do you think are affected most by the period of economic stagnation? This can relate to income,
age, education or home situation.
I think that lower educated people suffer the most, since they do not have a lot of chances on the
labour market already. Also, one parent households that are hit by the consequences of the
economic stagnation will definitely have a hard time making ends meet, since they have to take care
of their children as well.
What do you think people economize on first? Which kinds of products or services will be economized
on last? Why is that?
Maybe fewer holidays or to go closer if one does go on a holiday. Also postpone luxury goods, such
as buying a new television or computer and cut on one’s telephone subscription. The most important
thing one should not economize on are food and drinks. These are by far the most important aspects
in one’s life and therefore should not be cheap and of bad quality.
Do you think the economic stagnation affects people’s happiness? Why?
I think people get scared by all the people around them suffering from the economic stagnation, or
because they are suffering from it themselves. If people are unemployed they will be less happy,
because their income will decrease and they will have to take measures to make ends meet.
Do you think the economic stagnation affects people’s health? Why?
I think people do not economize on healthcare, so probably it does not affect it a lot. Still, being
unemployed can cause stress and this can eventually make one’s health a lot worse. This will really
depend on the person, if they are stress-sensitive and if the economic stagnation has actually
affected them.
Do you think there are people that have had less money due to the economic stagnation, but that
have not spent less money than before? Why do you think this happens?
I think it happens a lot, which is why there a lot of people in financial problems. This is not because
they do not get enough money, but because they spend more than is necessary. The combination of
overspending and not having a lot of income is what really hurts people in times of economic
stagnation.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
Do you think people borrow more money than before the economic stagnation? Did you see this
happening in your environment?
Yes, although banks make it really hard to actually be able to borrow money. I do not have lot of
personal experiences with borrowing money and also do not know people that have been in the
situation where this was necessary.
Do you think people manage their finances in a different way than before the economic stagnation?
Maybe a bit more conscious, but most people have faith in their own ways of managing their
finances and thus will not change their behaviour.
Do you think people save less money during times of economic stagnation? Why?
Probably, because there are a lot of people that have to work less or even get fired. This causes them
to have a lower income, thus not being able to save as much as in better times. They also need all
their money to pay daily products such as groceries and school.
Do you think the next few years will be financially better than the situation now?
Probably, you can take the house market as an example. The house market has been recovering,
more people are able to sell and buy their houses and mortgages are more easy to get than the past
few years. I hope this is the beginning of more recovery of the Dutch economy.
Interview 3
This interview was done with a person in age group 18-34 who is single without children, has a
fulltime job and had a higher education.
What consequences of the period of economic stagnation did you see in your environment?
People not going on holidays as often as they did before, because they had less money to spend. This
is probably caused by the increasing unemployment, which I think happened in a lot of sectors and
amongst both higher educated and lower educated people.
Who do you think are affected most by the period of economic stagnation? This can relate to income,
age, education or home situation.
I do not think it affects one group specifically. Everybody suffers from the consequences, such as not
being able to get a loan at a bank or companies going bankrupt. Still, people with a big buffer have
something to fall back on in tougher times, so higher income people will suffer less than lower
income people. Also, freelancers will definitely have a tough time since they will have less work due
to worse times.
What do you think people economize on first? Which kinds of products or services will be economized
on last? Why is that?
As said before, holidays are an easy product to economize on as it is not necessary. Maybe people
will do some chores themselves, which they would have outsources if they had enough money for it.
Furthermore, grocery shopping is something you do not save on generally. A possibility is to buy
cheaper brands than normal, which can save a lot of money if you do this a few months.
Do you think the economic stagnation affects people’s happiness? Why?
I think it only affects they people actually hit by the economic stagnation, so the people who become
unemployed or the people that are forced to work less hours than they want.
Do you think the economic stagnation affects people’s health? Why?
Here the same counts as with the previous question. People that have a lower monthly income due
to the economic stagnation will be more stressed. This will decrease their health, as stress causes
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }
more problems if it does not go away. People also need vacation, so if they economize on that they
will be even more stressed.
Do you think there are people that have had less money due to the economic stagnation, but that
have not spent less money than before? Why do you think this happens?
Probably, but spending money than comes in is a problem of all times. The economic stagnation
might make this worse, but people creating debts because of this is not a problem only occurring the
last few years. People like to show off by buying expensive products and services, even though they
cannot really afford this.
Do you think people borrow more money than before the economic stagnation? Did you see this
happening in your environment?
Yes, but I think this compensates for the amount of mortgages that was closed. Since a lot fewer
houses were sold over the past years, the amount of mortgages also decreased. So although people
probably have more debt because they are in financially tougher times, the debt in the Netherlands
has not increased that much.
Do you think people manage their finances in a different way than before the economic stagnation?
Not really, because most people know that if they have financial problems, it probably is not because
of their own lack of managerial skill but because of the economic stagnation.
Do you think people save less money during times of economic stagnation? Why?
This depends on one’s ‘ normal income’ , so the income a person normally gets. If this is high, even in
a period of economic stagnation they might still save the same amount of money. Although, if this is
low then they will probably choose to invest their money in something different than their savings
account.
Do you think the next few years will be financially better than the situation now?
I think it will be better, although a lot still has to change. The Eurozone still does not do very well and
it has a lot of problems that are hard to solve within the next few years. Still, the Netherlands on its
own can also help a lot in solving unemployment and debts.
{ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }

11.296 + Acres: WILL DIVIDE Purchase price: Call for pricing

Topics SOJA 25-9-2015

ANEのRANDO

Global Household & DIY Hand Tools Market

Household Wipes Market -Analysis By Geography, Competitors, Trends and Demands To 2026

Household Wipes Market - Size, Share, Outlook, and Opportunity Analysis, 2018-2026

Based on joint works with - Bioversity International

ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 29

F. Watuseke Tondano and not Toulour In

Facilitaion of Learning 2