IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mlb/wpaper/971.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating Policy: Welfare Weights And Value Judgements

Author

Listed:
  • John Creedy

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the use of social welfare functions in evaluating changes. In particular, it considers suggestions that welfare weights to be used in comparing the gains and losses of different individuals (or other appropriate units of analysis), and a social time preference rate for use in cost benefit evaluation, can be estimated either from consumers’ behaviour or from the judgements implicit in tax policy. It is suggested that results are highly sensitive to the context and model specification assumed. More importantly, the argument that an estimated elasticity of marginal utility or time preference rate should be used in policy evaluations fails to recognise that fundamental value judgements are involved. Various estimates may be of interest, but they cannot be used by economists to impose value judgements. The main contribution economists can make is to examine the implications of adopting a range of alternative value judgements.

Suggested Citation

  • John Creedy, 2006. "Evaluating Policy: Welfare Weights And Value Judgements," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 971, The University of Melbourne.
    • Handle: RePEc:mlb:wpaper:971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/wpapers-06/971.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin Van De Ven & John Creedy, 2005. "Taxation, Reranking and Equivalence Scales," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 13-36, January.
    2. David J. Evans, 2005. "The elasticity of marginal utility of consumption: estimates for 20 OECD countries," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 26(2), pages 197-224, June.
    3. Gevers, Louis & Glejser, Herbert & Rouyer, Jean, 1979. " Professed Inequality Aversion and Its Error Component," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(2), pages 238-243.
    4. Pasquale Scaramozzino & Giancarlo Marini, 2000. "Social time preference," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 13(4), pages 639-645.
    5. Christiansen, Vidar & Jansen, Eilev S., 1978. "Implicit social preferences in the Norwegian system of indirect taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 217-245, October.
    6. Richter, Wolfram F., 1983. "From ability to pay to concepts of equal sacrifice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 211-229, March.
    7. Cowell, Frank, 2006. "Inequality: measurement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 2686, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Young, H. P., 1987. "Progressive taxation and the equal sacrifice principle," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-214, March.
    9. John Creedy, 1996. "Fiscal Policy and Social Welfare," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 797.
    10. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    11. Koichi Mera, 1969. "Experimental Determination of Relative Marginal Utilities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 83(3), pages 464-477.
    12. Yoram Amiel & John Creedy & Stan Hurn, 1999. "Measuring Attitudes Towards Inequality," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(1), pages 83-96, March.
    13. Robert J. Brent, 1984. "Use of Distributional Weights in Cost-Benefit Analysis: a Survey of Schools," Public Finance Review, , vol. 12(2), pages 213-230, April.
    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. John Creedy & Ross Guest, 2007. "Discounting and the Time Preference Rate: An Introduction," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 993, The University of Melbourne.
    2. Creedy, John & Guest, Ross, 2008. "Population ageing and intertemporal consumption: Representative agent versus social planner," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 485-498, May.
    3. Peter J. Lambert & Helen T. Naughton, 2009. "The Equal Absolute Sacrifice Principle Revisited," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 328-349, April.
    4. David Madden & Michael Savage, 2020. "Which households matter most? Capturing equity considerations in tax reform via generalised social marginal welfare weights," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(1), pages 153-193, February.
    5. David (David Patrick) Madden & Michael Savage, 2015. "Which Households Matter Most? Capturing Equity Considerations in Tax Reform via Generalised Social Marginal Welfare Weights," Working Papers 201502, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    6. Buchholz, Wolfgang & Schumacher, Jan, 2010. "Discounting and welfare analysis over time: Choosing the [eta]," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 372-385, September.
    7. Matthew D. Adler, 2016. "Editor's Choice Benefit–Cost Analysis and Distributional Weights: An Overview," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 264-285.
    8. Jan Schumacher & Wolfgang Buchholz, 2008. "Discounting and Welfare Analysis Over Time: Choosing the ç," CESifo Working Paper Series 2230, CESifo.

    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. John Creedy, 2007. "Policy Evaluation, welfare weights and value judgements: a Reminder," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15.
    2. John Creedy & Ross Guest, 2008. "Discounting and the Time Preference Rate," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(264), pages 109-127, March.
    3. Creedy, John & Li, Shuyun May & Moslehi, Solmaz, 2010. "Inequality Aversion And The Optimal Composition Of Government Expenditure," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(S2), pages 290-306, November.
    4. Buchholz, Wolfgang & Schumacher, Jan, 2010. "Discounting and welfare analysis over time: Choosing the [eta]," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 372-385, September.
    5. Tymon Słoczyński, 2012. "Zastosowanie zasady równych ofiar do oceny sprawiedliwości taryfy podatku dochodowego od osób fizycznych (PIT) w Polsce," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 10, pages 23-47.
    6. Luis J. Imedio-Olmedo & Encarnación Macarena Parrado-Gallardo & M.Dolores. Sarrión, 1999. "La tarifa del IRPF y el principio de igualdad de sacrificio," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 23(2), pages 281-299, May.
    7. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Carlsson, Fredrik & Daruvala, Dinky, 2001. "Measuring Hypothetical Grandparents Preferences For Equality And Relative Standings," Working Papers in Economics 42, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2003. "Lorenz, Pareto, Pigou: Who Scores Best? Experimental Evidence on Dominance Relations of Income Distributions," Economics Working Papers 2003-04, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    9. Lockwood, Benjamin B. & Weinzierl, Matthew, 2016. "Positive and normative judgments implicit in U.S. tax policy, and the costs of unequal growth and recessions," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 30-47.
    10. Vidar Christiansen & Zhiyang Jia & Thor O. Thoresen, 2022. "Assessing income tax perturbations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(2), pages 472-504, April.
    11. Aristei, David & Perugini, Cristiano, 2010. "Preferences for redistribution and inequality in well-being across Europe," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 176-195, March.
    12. Olof Johansson-Stenman & Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala, 2002. "Measuring Future Grandparents" Preferences for Equality and Relative Standing," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(479), pages 362-383, April.
    13. Jukka Pirttilä & Roope Uusitalo, 2010. "A ‘Leaky Bucket’ in the Real World: Estimating Inequality Aversion using Survey Data," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 60-76, January.
    14. Anthony B. Atkinson & Andrea Brandolini, 2010. "On Analyzing the World Distribution of Income," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 24(1), pages 1-37, January.
    15. Michel Lubrano, 2008. "The Redistributive Aspects of ELIE: a simulationapproach," Working Papers halshs-00347278, HAL.
    16. Justin Van De Ven & John Creedy, 2005. "Taxation, Reranking and Equivalence Scales," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 13-36, January.
    17. Stanislaw Maciej Kot & Piotr Paradowski, 2022. "The Atlas of Inequality Aversion: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study Database," LIS Working papers 826, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    18. repec:gdk:wpaper:58 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    20. Mitra, Tapan & Ok, Efe A., 1997. "On the Equitability of Progressive Taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 316-334, April.
    21. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Olof Johansson‐Stenman, 2005. "Are People Inequality‐Averse, or Just Risk‐Averse?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 72(287), pages 375-396, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Evaluating Policy; Welfare Weights;

    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:mlb:wpaper:971. 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: Dandapani Lokanathan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demelau.html .

    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.