IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v51y1986i1p81-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal quantity of a controversial good or service

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Kohn

Abstract

The problem of the CGS requires no new tools of analysis. The precedent for including quantities of specific goods consumed by one person in the utility function of another person was established by Duesenberry (1949). Daly and Giertz (1972: 2) formalized the case in which simple awareness of what others are consuming can foster disutility as well as utility. This is a departure from the earlier view of Mill (1859: 78), who denied economic significance to the disutility of persons ‘... who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent ... as an outrage to their feelings.’ In these studies and that of Danielson (1975), the disutility associated with the consumption of a particular good is reduced by redistributing that good. The prospect of reducing disutility, not by redistributing the offending good but by reducing its total consumption is posed by Mishan (1969: 339), but there the problem is some physical by-product of consumption rather than pure awareness that the good is being consumed. In the present paper, it is the awareness that a particular good or service is being consumed that causes disutility to people who do not wish to consume that good themselves. The basic model here is that of the Samuelson public good, except that it is a ‘bad’, and the quantity of that bad is the total quantity consumed. There is thus a double summation: a vertical summation of marginal rates of substitution by nonconsumers and a horizontal summation of quantities consumed. The latter summation has no precedent as an argument in utility functions, and its significance may be questionable. Giertz and Sullivan (1977) develop a model in which consumption of a particular good by multiple recipients gives utility to multiple donors. But they are careful to assume that each of the n recipients consumes the same quantity. In the case of a CGS such an assumption would be unrealistic. However, it appears that horizontal summation may be crucial to the derivation of an efficient sumptuary tax for the CGS. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Kohn, 1986. "Optimal quantity of a controversial good or service," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 81-86, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:51:y:1986:i:1:p:81-86
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00141687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00141687
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00141687?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mishan, E J, 1969. "The Relationship between Joint Products, Collective Goods, and External Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 329-348, May/June.
    2. Solomon, Richard L & Corbit, John D, 1978. "An Opponent-Process Theory of Motivation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(6), pages 12-24, December.
    3. J. Fred Giertz & Dennis Sullivan, 1977. "Donor optimization and the food stamp program," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 19-35, March.
    4. George Daly & J. Giertz, 1972. "Benevolence, malevolence and economic theory," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Robert Kohn, 1988. "Transactions costs and the controversial good or service," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 89-93, April.

    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. E. Pasour, 1983. "A limited defense of Pareto optimal redistribution: Comment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 451-454, January.
    2. Hummel Jeffrey Rogers & Lavoie Don, 1994. "National Defense And The Public-Goods Problem," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2-3), pages 353-378, June.
    3. Allen, Joyce E. & Newton, Doris Epson, 1986. "Existing Food Policies And Their Relationship To Hunger And Nutrition," 1986 Annual Meeting, July 27-30, Reno, Nevada 278490, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Allen, Joyce E., 1984. "Multiple Program Participation In The Income Maintenance System," Staff Reports 277631, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Thomas D. Birch, 1987. "Basic Needs: Paternalistic Government Welfare Policy with Distortionary Taxation," Public Finance Review, , vol. 15(3), pages 298-321, July.
    6. Archibald, Sandra O. & McCorkle, Chester O. Jr & Howitt, Richard E., 1986. "A Dynamic Analysis Of Production Externalities : Pesticide Resistance In California Cotton," Working Papers 225802, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. William Sander & J. Giertz, 1986. "The political economy of state level welfare benefits," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 209-219, January.
    8. Mike Young, 2000. "Valuing Externalities: A methodology for urban water use," Natural Resource Management Economics 00_007, Policy and Economic Research Unit, CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, Australia.
    9. Monique Florenzano, 2009. "Walras-Lindahl-Wicksell: What equilibrium concept for public goods provision," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00531434, HAL.
    10. John F. Johnston, 1975. "Utility Interdependence and Redistribution: Methodological Implications for Welfare Economics and the Theory of the Public Household," Public Finance Review, , vol. 3(3), pages 195-228, July.
    11. Polcyn, Jan, 2017. "Edukacja jako dobro publiczne - próba kwantyfikacji [Education as a public good – an attempt at quantification]," MPRA Paper 76606, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2017.
    12. B Stiftel, 1990. "Balance of Representation in Water Planning: An Assessment of Experience from North Carolina," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 17(1), pages 105-120, March.
    13. Kletke, Marilyn G., 1977. "Anti-Poverty Distribution Of Food Stamp Program Benefits: A Profile Of 1975 Federal Program Outlays," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 9(2), pages 1-7, December.
    14. J. Giertz & Dennis Sullivan, 1978. "On the political economy of food stamps," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 113-117, January.
    15. Bruce Bolnick, 1981. "Government as a super Becker-altruist: A reply," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 603-606, January.
    16. J. Fred Giertz & Dennis Sullivan, 1977. "Donor optimization and the food stamp program," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 19-35, March.
    17. Nathalie Berta, 2016. "On the definition of externality as a missing market," Post-Print halshs-01277990, HAL.
    18. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Quaas, Martin, 2010. "Sustainability economics -- General versus specific, and conceptual versus practical," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2056-2059, September.
    19. Nathalie Berta, 2017. "On the definition of externality as a missing market," Post-Print hal-02095696, HAL.
    20. Morton Kamien & Nancy Schwartz, 1970. "Revelation of preference for a public good with imperfect exclusion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 19-30, September.

    More about this item

    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:kap:pubcho:v:51:y:1986:i:1:p:81-86. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.