The measurement of household cost functions : Revealed preference versus subjective measures
Since the work of Pollak and Wales (1979), it is well-known that demand data are insufficient to identify a household cost function. Hence additional information is required. For that purpose I propose to employ direct measurement of feelings of well-being, elicited in surveys. In the paper I formally establish the connection between subjective measures and the cost function underlying the AID system. The subjective measures fully identify cost functions and the expenditure data do this partly. This makes it possible to test the null hypothesis that both types of data are consistent with one another, i.e. that they measure the same thing. I use two separate data sets to set up a test of this equivalence. The outcomes are somewhat mixed and indicate the need for further specification search. Finally, I discuss some implications of the outcomes.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- van de Stadt, Huib & Kapteyn, Arie & van de Geer, Sara, 1985. "The Relativity of Utility: Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(2), pages 179-187, May.
- Arie Kapteyn & Peter Kooreman & Rob Willemse, 1988.
"Some Methodological Issues in the Implementation of Subjective Poverty Definitions,"
Journal of Human Resources,
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 23(2), pages 222-242.
- Kapteyn, A.J. & Kooreman, P. & Willemse, R., 1987. "Some methodological issues in the implementation of subjective poverty definitions," Research Memorandum FEW 245, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1991. "Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-89, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tiu:tiucen:8471daaa-5d7d-4026-a7c1-c1c74313b207. 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: (Richard Broekman)
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.