IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ete/ceswps/636146.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Interpersonal comparisons by means of money metric utilities: why one should use the same reference prices for all

Author

Listed:
  • Bart Capéau
  • André Decoster
  • Liebrecht De Sadeleer

Abstract

We show that using different reference prices for different individuals in money metrics of well–being leads to violations of several normative properties of interpersonal welfare comparisons that have become popular in the fairness literature. An empirical illustration for Belgian single adults available for the labour market in 2015 shows that the violation of these principles in the labour consumption context, is all but exceptional

Suggested Citation

  • Bart Capéau & André Decoster & Liebrecht De Sadeleer, 2019. "Interpersonal comparisons by means of money metric utilities: why one should use the same reference prices for all," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 636146, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    • Handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:636146
    Note: paper number DPS 19.05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/d64e825f-3107-41f0-928d-110bf5685962
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, Enero-Abr.
    2. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2012. "Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199653591, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. François Maniquet, 2017. "De chacun selon ses capacités à chacun selon ses besoins, ou (même) plus, s’il le souhaite," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(1), pages 119-129.
    2. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2012. "The Public Economics of Increasing Longevity," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 200(1), pages 41-74, March.
    3. Aitor Calo-Blanco, 2015. "Health, responsibility and taxation with a fresh start," Working Papers 15.06, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    4. Brunori, Paolo & Ferreira, Francisco & Lugo, Maria Ana & Peragine, Vito, 2013. "Opportunity-sensitive poverty measurement," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6728, The World Bank.
    5. Antoinette Baujard, 2016. "Welfare economics," Chapters, in: Gilbert Faccarello & Heinz D. Kurz (ed.), Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis Volume III, chapter 42, pages 611-624, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Roemer, John E., 2012. "A common ground for resource and welfare egalitarianism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 832-841.
    7. Marie-Louise Leroux & Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2022. "Childlessness, childfreeness and compensation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 1-35, July.
    8. Marc Fleurbaey, 2012. "Economics is not what you think: A defense of the economic approach to taxation," Working Papers halshs-00698575, HAL.
    9. Pertti Haaparanta & Ravi Kanbur & Tuuli Paukkeri & Jukka Pirttilä & Matti Tuomala, 2022. "Promoting education under distortionary taxation: equality of opportunity versus welfarism," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 281-297, June.
    10. Laurence Jacquet & Dirk Van de Gaer, 2015. "Politiques fiscales optimales pour les bas revenus et principe de compensation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(3), pages 579-600.
    11. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Optimal Labor Income Taxation," NBER Working Papers 18521, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    13. Tim Obermeier, 2023. "Individual Welfare Analysis: A tale of consumption, time use and preference heterogeneity," POID Working Papers 082, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2020. "‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 51-84, June.
    15. Paul Hufe & Ravi Kanbur & Andreas Peichlifo, 2022. "Measuring Unfair Inequality: Reconciling Equality of Opportunity and Freedom from Poverty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(6), pages 3345-3380.
    16. Henry de Frahan, Lancelot & Maniquet, François, 2021. "Preference responsibility versus poverty reduction in the taxation of labor incomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    17. Dirk Van de gaer & Xavier Ramos, 2020. "Measurement of inequality of opportunity based on counterfactuals," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 595-627, October.
    18. Fleurbaey, Marc & Ponthiere, Gregory, 2013. "Prevention against equality?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 68-84.
    19. Marc Fleurbaey & Giacomo Valletta, 2018. "Fair optimal tax with endogenous productivities," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(6), pages 849-873, December.
    20. Aitor Calo-Blanco & J. García-Pérez, 2014. "On the welfare loss caused by inequality of opportunity," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 12(2), pages 221-237, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Money metric utility; well–being measurement; equivalent variation; labour supply;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ete:ceswps:636146. 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: library EBIB (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://feb.kuleuven.be/Economics/ .

    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.