Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income? A Caveat
Few generalizations in the social sciences enjoy such wide-ranging support as that of diminishing marginal utility of income. Put simply, this proposition states that the effect on subjective well-being of a $1,000 increase in income becomes progressively smaller the higher the initial level of income. Distinguished scholars in economics, political science, psychology, and sociology who have made major contributions to the study of subjective well-being concur on this assertion. Its policy appeal is great because it implies that raising the income of poor people or poor countries will raise their well-being considerably, while an increase of equal amount for the rich will have comparatively little effect. The diminishing returns generalization is based on point-of-time bivariate comparisons of happiness with real income, either among or within countries. If, as these cross sectional studies suggest, there is diminishing marginal utility of income, then this point-of-time pattern should be replicated over time as income traverses the range of values covered in the cross sectional analysis. I propose to test whether historical experience reproduces the point-of-time relationship, first, using an international cross section of happiness and income, and then, a within-country one for the United States. As in the studies cited, I use a simple bivariate comparison. It turns out that income change over time does not generate the change in happiness implied by the cross sectional pattern. The present analysis is not exhaustive, but it does suggest the need for caution in assuming that cross sectional generalizations about diminishing marginal utility of income can be safely used to anticipate change over time.
|Date of creation:|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://lawweb.usc.edu/|
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.:
- Ruut Veenhoven, 1991. "Is happiness relative?," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-34, February.
- Frank, Robert H, 1997. "The Frame of Reference as a Public Good," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1832-47, November.
- Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, .
"What can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?,"
IEW - Working Papers
080, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- 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.
- Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2001. "What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?," CESifo Working Paper Series 503, CESifo Group Munich.
- Easterlin, Richard A., 1995. "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 35-47, June.
- Robert Lane, 2000. "Diminishing Returns to Income, Companionship – and Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 103-119, March.
- Easterlin, Richard A, 2001. "Income and Happiness: Towards an Unified Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 465-84, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bep:usclwp:usclwps-1004. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.