IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/131365.html

Judging Social Priority and the Marginal Utility of Income Among Individuals

Author

Listed:
  • Hammitt, James K.

Abstract

Weighted benefit-cost analysis is receiving increased attention as a method to incorporate concerns about the distribution of policy effects across individuals. Weights are intended to reflect interpersonal differences in the effect of income on wellbeing (the marginal utility of income) and the social value of improving the wellbeing of different individuals. Lacking an objective method for comparing differences or levels of wellbeing between individuals, multiple approaches to estimating how the marginal utility of income depends on income or other factors have been developed, but each of these requires strong assumptions that are not always recognized. This suggests that weights must be chosen judgmentally. Holding income constant, weights are likely to be smaller for older people, due to shorter remaining life expectancy and other factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Hammitt, James K., 2026. "Judging Social Priority and the Marginal Utility of Income Among Individuals," TSE Working Papers 26-1707, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:131365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2026/wp_tse_1707.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Sugden, 2004. "The Opportunity Criterion: Consumer Sovereignty Without the Assumption of Coherent Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1014-1033, September.
    2. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Richard Layard, 2023. "Wellbeing: science and policy," CentrePiece - The magazine for economic performance 656, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Sloan, Frank A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Chesson, Harrell W. & Conover, Christopher J. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn, 1998. "Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis1," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 475-497, August.
    4. Hammitt, James K., 2021. "Accounting for the Distribution of Benefits and Costs in Benefit–Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 64-84, March.
    5. Courard-Hauri, David & Lauer, Stephen A., 2012. "Taking “All Men Are Created Equal” Seriously: Toward a Metric for the Intergroup Comparison of Utility Functions Through Life Values," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2016. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 24-45, January.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Layard, R. & Mayraz, G. & Nickell, S., 2008. "The marginal utility of income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1846-1857, August.
    9. Fleurbaey, Marc & Hammitt, James K., 2024. "The Right Numeraire or the Just Weights? How to Make BCA Rational and Fair," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(S1), pages 6-25, December.
    10. Ferranna, Maddalena & Hammitt, James K. & Robinson, Lisa A., 2024. "From Benefit–Cost Analysis to Social Welfare: A Pragmatic Approach," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(S1), pages 84-109, December.
    11. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    12. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles Kimball, 2024. "From Happiness Data to Economic Conclusions," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 16(1), pages 359-391, August.
    13. W. Kip Viscusi, 2019. "Utility functions for mild and severe health risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 143-166, June.
    14. Louis Kaplow, 2024. "Optimal Income Taxation and Charitable Giving," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 123-162.
    15. Canning, David, 2023. "Conducting Cost Benefit Analysis in Expected Utility Units Using Revealed Social Preferences," Working Papers 0722, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    16. Martin Ravallion, 2020. "On Measuring Global Poverty," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 167-188, August.
    17. Ben Groom & David Maddison Pr., 2019. "New Estimates of the Elasticity of Marginal Utility for the UK," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1155-1182, April.
    18. Moatsos, Michail & Lazopoulos, Achillefs, 2021. "Global poverty: A first estimation of its uncertainty," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    19. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    20. Viscusi, W Kip & Evans, William N, 1990. "Utility Functions That Depend on Health Status: Estimates and Economic Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 353-374, June.
    21. Louis Kaplow, 2024. "Optimal Income Taxation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 637-738, June.
    22. Adler, Matthew D. & Fleurbaey, Marc (ed.), 2016. "The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199325818.
    23. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1978. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 185-200, January.
    24. Acland, Daniel J. & Greenberg, David H., 2023. "Distributional weighting and welfare/equity tradeoffs: a new approach," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 68-92, March.
    25. Courard-Hauri David & Lauer Stephen A., 2012. "Taking "All Men Are Created Equal" Seriously: Toward a Metric for the Intergroup Comparison of Utility Functions Through Life Values," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-30, August.
    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. Deparade, Darius & Jarmolinski, Lennart & Mohr, Peter, 2025. "Behavioral interventions, tax compliance and consequences on inequality," Discussion Papers 2025/4, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    2. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    3. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    4. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    5. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 2024. "Large compound lotteries," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    6. Zhou, Jing, 2024. "Does correlation matter in probability matching? A laboratory investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 876-894.
    7. Jeeva Somasundaram & Vincent Eli, 2022. "Risk and time preferences interaction: An experimental measurement," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 215-238, October.
    8. Guo, Jing & He, Xue Dong, 2017. "Equilibrium asset pricing with Epstein-Zin and loss-averse investors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 86-108.
    9. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2021. "Large Compound Lotteries," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1057, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 01 Aug 2023.
    11. Ohto Kanninen & Petri Böckerman & Ilpo Suoniemi, 2026. "Income–Well‐Being Gradient in Sickness and Health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(3), pages 409-422, March.
    12. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    13. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    14. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    15. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    16. Wakker, Peter P. & Yang, Jingni, 2019. "A powerful tool for analyzing concave/convex utility and weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 143-159.
    17. Charles E. Phelps, 2024. "A user’s guide to economic utility functions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 235-280, December.
    18. Meng, Jingyi & Webb, Craig S. & Zank, Horst, 2024. "Mixture independence foundations for expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Chew, Soo Hong & Miao, Bin & Shen, Qiang & Zhong, Songfa, 2022. "Multiple-switching behavior in choice-list elicitation of risk preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    20. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    More about this item

    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:tse:wpaper:131365. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.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.