IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jecrev/v70y2019i3p383-393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Potential Compensation Principle and Constant Marginal Utility of Income

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Martin

Abstract

In policy applications, industrial economists are wont to invoke the Kaldor–Hicks potential compensation principle to justify the use of deadweight loss as a measure of the welfare cost of market power. This usage rests on two assumptions. One of these assumptions, that changes in consumer and producer surplus are weighted equally, is well understood. The other assumption, that the marginal utility of income is constant, receives less attention. In a simple model, I show that if there is decreasing marginal utility of income, the use of deadweight loss as an index of market performance rests on shaky ground.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Potential Compensation Principle and Constant Marginal Utility of Income," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 383-393, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jecrev:v:70:y:2019:i:3:p:383-393
    DOI: 10.1111/jere.12240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jere.12240
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jere.12240?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor Aguirregabiria & Margaret Slade, 2017. "Empirical models of firms and industries," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1445-1488, December.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2002. "What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 402-435, June.
    3. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    4. Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Kaldor–Hicks Potential Compensation Principle and the Constant Marginal Utility of Income," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(3), pages 493-513, November.
    5. Williamson, Oliver E, 1969. "Allocative Efficiency and the Limits of Antitrust," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 105-118, May.
    6. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    7. Harberger, Arnold C, 1971. "Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 785-797, September.
    8. Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Potential Compensation Principle and Constant Marginal Utility of Income," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 383-393, September.
    9. Baranzini,Mauro L. & Rotondi,Claudia & Scazzieri,Roberto (ed.), 2015. "Resources, Production and Structural Dynamics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107079090, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Bauer & Darius Lakdawalla & Julian Reif, 2018. "Mortality Risk, Insurance, and the Value of Life," NBER Working Papers 25055, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Kaldor–Hicks Potential Compensation Principle and the Constant Marginal Utility of Income," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(3), pages 493-513, November.
    3. Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Potential Compensation Principle and Constant Marginal Utility of Income," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 383-393, September.
    4. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Colombo, Sergio & Faccioli, Michela, 2024. "Enhancing the face validity of choice experiments: A simple diagnostic check," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    5. Stephen Martin, 2019. "Economies as an Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Tradeoffs—Introduction to the Special Issue," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(3), pages 327-338, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Kaldor–Hicks Potential Compensation Principle and the Constant Marginal Utility of Income," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(3), pages 493-513, November.
    2. Stephen Martin, 2019. "Economies as an Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Tradeoffs—Introduction to the Special Issue," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(3), pages 327-338, November.
    3. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    4. Patrick Bajari & Jeremy Fox & Stephen Ryan, 2008. "Evaluating wireless carrier consolidation using semiparametric demand estimation," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 299-338, December.
    5. Greene, David & Hossain, Anushah & Hofmann, Julia & Helfand, Gloria & Beach, Robert, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for vehicle attributes: What do we Know?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 258-279.
    6. Alessandro Gavazza & Alessandro Lizzeri & Nikita Roketskiy, 2014. "A Quantitative Analysis of the Used-Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(11), pages 3668-3700, November.
    7. Fève, Frédérique & Fève, Patrick & Florens, Jean-Pierre, 2002. "Attribute Choices and Structural Econometrics of Price Elasticity of Demand," IDEI Working Papers 155, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 2003.
    8. Susanna Esteban & Matthew Shum, 2007. "Durable-goods oligopoly with secondary markets: the case of automobiles," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 332-354, June.
    9. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2016. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 192-208, March.
    10. Pietro Tebaldi & Alexander Torgovitsky & Hanbin Yang, 2023. "Nonparametric Estimates of Demand in the California Health Insurance Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(1), pages 107-146, January.
    11. Fabian Dunker & Konstantin Eckle & Katharina Proksch & Johannes Schmidt-Hieber, 2017. "Tests for qualitative features in the random coefficients model," Papers 1704.01066, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2018.
    12. Arlan Brucal & Michael Roberts, 2015. "Can Energy Efficiency Standards Reduce Prices and Improve Quality? Evidence from the US Clothes Washer Market," Working Papers 2015-5, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    13. Christos Genakos & Andreas Lamprinidis & James Walker, 2023. "Evaluating merger effects," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(6), pages 3325-3345, September.
    14. Wong, Maisy, 2010. "The Relationship between Marginal Willingness-to-Pay in the Hedonic and Discrete Choice Models," MPRA Paper 51218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Thomas W. Quan & Kevin R. Williams, 2017. "Product Variety, Across-Market Demand Heterogeneity, and the Value of Online Retail," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2054R3, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jun 2018.
    16. Ali Hortaçsu & Chad Syverson, 2004. "Product Differentiation, Search Costs, and Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry: A Case Study of S&P 500 Index Funds," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 403-456.
    17. Paulo Albuquerque & Bart J. Bronnenberg, 2012. "Measuring the Impact of Negative Demand Shocks on Car Dealer Networks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 4-23, January.
    18. Christopher T. Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2013. "Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 1-30, November.
    19. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    20. Erica L. Groshen & Brian C. Moyer & Ana M. Aizcorbe & Ralph Bradley & David M. Friedman, 2017. "How Government Statistics Adjust for Potential Biases from Quality Change and New Goods in an Age of Digital Technologies: A View from the Trenches," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 187-210, Spring.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jecrev:v:70:y:2019:i:3:p:383-393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.