IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nuf/econwp/046.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Equivalence Scales for Tax and Benefits Systems

Author

Listed:
  • John Muellbauer

    () (Nuffield College, Oxford University, UK)

  • Justin van de Ven

    () (National Institute of Economic and Social Research, UK)

Abstract

When comparing, say, the welfare derived from income by a family that is comprised of two adults and three children to that of a single adult, it is necessary to take into consideration the relative needs of the respective households. The most common means by which applied studies in economics currently relate the needs of heterogeneous income units is through the use of equivalence scales. Despite a considerable research effort, however, almost every aspect of equivalence scale specification remains controversial. What characteristics should equivalence scales take into account? Should the scales apply an additive or multiplicative adjustment to income? Is the assumption of base independence valid?1 How should a reference unit be selected? Is it reasonable to assume that there is no inequality within an income unit? What criteria are most sensible for selecting a functional form? And, arguably most important, do the cardinal relations implied by equivalence scales permit income units to be compared in terms of underlying welfare? All of these questions remain largely unresolved. This paper is concerned with estimating the relativities that are implicit in tax and benefits policy. Using observed tax and benefits payments to estimate equivalence scales may mitigate some of the criticisms to which alternative scale specification criteria have been subject. For example, most econometric estimates of equivalence scales used for distributional analysis are based on consumer demand behaviour. Pollak and Wales (1979, p. 216) have notably criticised this methodology on the basis that “the equivalence scales required for welfare comparisons are logically distinct from those which arise in demand analysis”. The central difficulty is that demand analysis fails to provide a basis for making cardinal comparisons of welfare between households, and so equivalence scales that are estimated from expenditure data necessarily depend upon exogenously imposed value judgements. In contrast, part of the intuitive appeal of equivalence scales based on a country’s transfer system is the perception that such relativities embody a social consensus; that the tax and benefits system, being an observable instrument of government, can be used to infer the value judgements made by government when acting in its role as administrative agent for society. Comparison of the relativities that underlie taxation with equivalence scales based on the costs borne by heterogeneous income units could also provide a useful means for evaluating the adequacy of associated provisions made by transfer systems. Alternatively, the equivalence scales implicit in transfer systems could be used to compare the provisions made through time and/or between countries. Such equivalence scales could also play a role in the tax design process itself. In view of the fact that the redistributive systems of many countries are comprised of numerous different tax and benefit schemes, it is difficult to ensure that the overall system does in fact achieve the desired redistribution. Information about implicit scales — which may on reflection be found to differ from the values held by policy makers — can be useful in suggesting that certain features of the tax system need adjusting.

Suggested Citation

  • John Muellbauer & Justin van de Ven, 2004. "Estimating Equivalence Scales for Tax and Benefits Systems," Economics Papers 2004-W06, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  • Handle: RePEc:nuf:econwp:046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2004/W6/EstimatingEquivalence.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Banks & Mike Brewer, 2002. "Understanding the relative generosity of government financial support for families with children," IFS Working Papers W02/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Lambert, Peter J. & Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 1997. "Income tax credits and exemptions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 343-351, May.
    3. Balcer, Yves & Sadka, Efraim, 1986. "Equivalence scales, horizontal equity and optimal taxation under utilitarianism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 79-97, February.
    4. Coulter, Fiona A E & Cowell, Frank A & Jenkins, Stephen P, 1992. "Differences in Needs and Assessment of Income Distributions," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 77-124, April.
    5. Musgrave, Richard A., 1990. "Horizontal Equity, Once More," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 43(2), pages 113-22, June.
    6. Udo Ebert & Peter J. Lambert, 2004. "Horizontal Equity and Progression When Equivalence Scales Are Not Constant," Public Finance Review, , vol. 32(4), pages 426-440, July.
    7. Lambert, Peter J, 1993. "Inequality Reduction through the Income Tax," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 60(239), pages 357-365, August.
    8. Ebert, Udo, 1997. "Social Welfare When Needs Differ: An Axiomatic Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(254), pages 233-244, May.
    9. Harvey S. Rosen, 1978. "An Approach to the Study of Income, Utility, and Horizontal Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 307-322.
    10. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1986. "On Measuring Child Costs: With Applications to Poor Countries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 720-744, August.
    11. Barro, Robert J & Becker, Gary S, 1989. "Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 481-501, March.
    12. Kaplow, Louis, 1996. " Optimal Distribution and the Family," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 98(1), pages 75-92, March.
    13. Ebert, Udo & Lambert, Peter J, 1999. "Combined Income Taxes and Tax-Benefit Systems," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 397-404, December.
    14. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, March.
    15. Diamond, Peter A, 1998. "Optimal Income Taxation: An Example with a U-Shaped Pattern of Optimal Marginal Tax Rates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 83-95, March.
    16. Donaldson, D. & Pendakur, K., 1999. "Equivalent-Income Functions and Income-Dependent Equivalence Scales," Discussion Papers dp99-8, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    17. Pollak, Robert A & Wales, Terence J, 1979. "Welfare Comparisons and Equivalence Scales," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 216-221, May.
    18. J. A. Mirrlees, 1971. "An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 175-208.
    19. Atkinson, A. B. & Bouguignon, F. & Chiappori, P. A., 1988. "What do we learn about tax reform from international comparisons? France and Britain," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 343-352, March.
    20. Moyes, Patrick & Shorrocks, Anthony, 1998. "The impossibility of a progressive tax structure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 49-65, July.
    21. Musgrave, Richard A., 1990. "Horizontal Equity, Once More," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 43(2), pages 113-122, June.
    22. Seneca, Joseph J & Taussig, Michael K, 1971. "Family Equivalence Scales and Personal Income Tax Exemptions for Children," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 53(3), pages 253-262, August.
    23. Creedy, J. & Van de Ven, J., 1998. "The Redistributive Effect of Selected Australian Taxes and Transfers on Annual and Lifetime Inequality," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 658, The University of Melbourne.
    24. Mike Brewer & Tom Clark, 2002. "The impact on incentives of five years of social security reform in the UK," IFS Working Papers W02/14, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    25. Lewbel, Arthur, 1989. "Household equivalence scales and welfare comparisons," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 377-391, August.
    26. Muellbauer, John, 1975. "The cost of living and taste and quality change," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 269-283, June.
    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. Cronin, Julie-Anne & DeFilippes, Portia & Lin, Emily Y., 2012. "Effects of Adjusting Distribution Tables for Family Size," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(4), pages 739-758, December.
    2. repec:nsr:niesrd:407 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paolo Lucchino & Dr Justin van de Ven, 2013. "Empirical Analysis of Household Savings Decisions in Context of Uncertainty: A cross-sectional approach," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 417, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    4. Olivier Bargain, 2008. "Normative evaluation of tax policies: from households to individuals," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 21(2), pages 339-371, April.
    5. Justin van de Ven, 2016. "LINDA: A dynamic microsimulation model for analysing policy effects on the evolving population cross-section," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 459, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    6. Justin van de Ven & Paolo Lucchino, 2013. "Modelling the Dynamic Effects of Transfer Policy: The LINDA Policy Analysis Tool," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2013n20, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    7. Justin Van de Ven, 2009. "A Simulation Analysis of the Effects of the Socio-economic Environment on Fertility and Female Labour Supply Decisions in the United Kingdom," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 324, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    8. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2011. "Tax-Benefit Systems in Europe and the US: Between Equity and Efficiency," CESifo Working Paper Series 3534, CESifo Group Munich.
    9. Justin Ven & Nicolas Hérault & Francisco Azpitarte, 2017. "Identifying tax implicit equivalence scales," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(3), pages 257-275, September.
    10. repec:nsr:niesrd:406 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:nuf:econwp:046. 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: (Maxine Collett). General contact details of provider: https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.