IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Preferenze abitudinarie e teoria del benessere

  • De Paola Maria

This paper examines the implication of the habit forming hypothesis for welfare theory. When preferences are no longer given exogenously, but rather change in relation to past consumption and other economic variables it is crucial to understand whether they still represent an adequate expression of individual welfare. On this point the distinction between individuals who are capable to predict future taste (rational habit forming models) and those who are not (myopic habit forming models) assumes essential importance. First the paper analyses the main criteria proposed by myopic habit forming models for measuring individual and social welfare. The same sort of problem undermines them all: the need for information that cannot be inferred from individuals' behaviour. Consequently it is necessary to question the legitimacy of paternalistic intervention. These issues become meaningless if the rational habit forming hypothesis is accepted. Thanks to the ability of individuals to predict their future preferences, the results achieved by traditional welfare theory are preserved. The utility function, however, must respect some restrictive conditions (Strotz 1956, Pollak 1968). If these are not respected, then the rational habit forming hypothesis can generate exchanges that do no benefit both parties (Yaari 1977). Moreover, the rational habit forming process of preference formation will aggravate some inefficiencies of the economic system (Hanhel-Albert 1990).

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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:
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Società editrice il Mulino in its journal Politica economica - Journal of Economic Policy (PEJEP).

Volume (Year): (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 249

in new window

Handle: RePEc:mul:je8794:doi:10.1429/1497:y:2000:i:2:p:249
Contact details of provider:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mul:je8794:doi:10.1429/1497:y:2000:i:2:p:249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.