This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Evaluating Policy: Welfare Weights And Value Judgements

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
John Creedy

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the use of social welfare functions in evaluating changes. In particular, it considers suggestions that welfare weights to be used in comparing the gains and losses of different individuals (or other appropriate units of analysis), and a social time preference rate for use in cost benefit evaluation, can be estimated either from consumers’ behaviour or from the judgements implicit in tax policy. It is suggested that results are highly sensitive to the context and model specification assumed. More importantly, the argument that an estimated elasticity of marginal utility or time preference rate should be used in policy evaluations fails to recognise that fundamental value judgements are involved. Various estimates may be of interest, but they cannot be used by economists to impose value judgements. The main contribution economists can make is to examine the implications of adopting a range of alternative value judgements.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/SITE/research/workingpapers/wp06/971.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The University of Melbourne in its series Department of Economics - Working Papers Series with number 971.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 25 pages
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mlb:wpaper:971

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne, 5th Floor, Economics and Commerce Building, Victoria, 3010, Australia
Phone: +61 3 8344 5289
Fax: +61 3 8344 6899
Email:
Web page: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Colemann Leong).

Related research
Keywords: Evaluating Policy; Welfare Weights;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. David J. Evans, 2005. "The elasticity of marginal utility of consumption: estimates for 20 OECD countries," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 26(2), pages 197-224, June.
  2. Justin van de Ven & John Creedy, 2003. "Taxation, Reranking and Equivalence Scales," Treasury Working Paper Series 03/11, New Zealand Treasury. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Amiel, Yoram & Creedy, John & Hurn, Stan, 1999. " Measuring Attitudes towards Inequality," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 101(1), pages 83-96, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Pasquale Scaramozzino & Giancarlo Marini, 2000. "Social time preference," Journal of Population Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 639-645. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Christiansen, Vidar & Jansen, Eilev S., 1978. "Implicit social preferences in the Norwegian system of indirect taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 217-245, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Frank A Cowell, 2006. "Inequality: Measurement," STICERD - Distributional Analysis Research Programme Papers 86, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE. [Downloadable!]
  7. Young, H. P., 1987. "Progressive taxation and the equal sacrifice principle," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-214, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Mera, Koichi, 1969. "Experimental Determination of Relative Marginal Utilities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 83(3), pages 464-77, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Richter, Wolfram F., 1983. "From ability to pay to concepts of equal sacrifice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 211-229, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Gevers, Louis & Glejser, Herbert & Rouyer, Jean, 1979. " Professed Inequality Aversion and Its Error Component," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 81(2), pages 238-43.
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Jan Schumacher & Wolfgang Buchholz, 2008. "Discounting and Welfare Analysis Over Time: Choosing the ç," CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper No. , CESifo Group Munich. [Downloadable!]
  2. John Creedy & Ross Guest, 2007. "Discounting and the Time Preference Rate: An Introduction," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 993, The University of Melbourne. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Use the JEL tree to browse through the database by subfields.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-23.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.