What's wrong with New Zealand's public benefit test?
New Zealand courts and regulatory authorities have since 1994 adopted an extreme neoliberal version of the public benefit test, treating wealth transfers from consumers to monopolists as welfare-neutral. This abandonment of the long-established consumer-welfare or balancing-weights standards used in most other OECD jurisdictions rests upon a misconstruction of the alleged inability of economists to reach consensus on how to evaluate changes in income distribution. The intellectual cul-de-sac occupied by “new welfare economics” should leave policymakers free to attack monopoly profits without having to endure utilitarian criticisms from neoliberal economists. In doing so. New Zealand policymakers would be acting in accordance with strong economic arguments for restraining monopoly, drawn from the wider mainstream of the economic literature and requiring no utilitarian underpinning.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 38 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RNZP20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RNZP20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:nzecpp:v:38:y:2004:i:2:p:265-277. 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.