Dual interpersonal comparisons of utility and the welfare economics of income distribution

Interpersonal comparisons can be of utility levels and/or of utility differences. Comparisons of levels can be used to define equity in distributing income. Comparisons of differences can be used to construct an additive Bergson social welfare function over income distributions. When both utility levels and utility differences are compared, one can require the constructed additive Bergson social welfare function to indicate a preference for more equitable income distributions. This restricts the form of both the individual utility functions and the optimal distribution of income. The form of these restrictions depends on whether the levels and differences of the same utility functions are being compared.     

The monetary utility premium and interpersonal comparisons

The utility premium is generally defined as the pain or reduction in expected utility caused by an n$n$th-degree risk increase, where n≥2$n\ge 2$. While it is a very useful concept in understanding a decision maker’s choice in uncertain situations, the utility premium is not interpersonally comparable. This note shows that the monetary utility premium–the utility premium divided by the expected marginal utility at the random starting wealth–is interpersonally comparable, and the comparison is characterized by Ross more risk aversion of the corresponding degree.     

Toward a deconstruction of utility and welfare economics

David Gordon is a senior fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.     

Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects

This paper provides direct evidence that income comparisons exert a significant impact on subjective well-being. It also evaluates the relative importance of different types of benchmarks. Internal comparisons to one's own past living standard outweigh any other comparison benchmarks. Local comparisons (to one's parents, former colleagues or high school mates) are more powerful than self-ranking in the social ladder. The impact of comparisons is asymmetric: under-performing one's benchmark always has a greater welfare effect than out-performing it (in absolute value). Comparisons, which reduce satisfaction also increase the demand for income redistribution, but there, the relative impact of subjective ranking is preponderant.     

Interdependent welfare functions and optimal income distribution

The relationship between income distribution and social welfare is empirically analyzed, while explicitly allowing for the interdependence of individual welfare functions. The social welfare function is taken to be an additive function of individual welfare functions of income (WFIs). On the basis of Dutch data it is found that under certain conditions (such as absence of effects of income redistribution on productivity) an equal distribution of incomes is suboptimal. The interdependence of WFIs appears to have a pronounced effect on policy conclusions concerning the desirability of income redistribution vis-à-vis economic growth.     

Dual labor market hypothesis and long-run income distribution

We construct a dynamic model of dual labor market, incorporating firm investment behavior and household investment behavior on education. Education enhances the trainability of individuals and thus provides qualifications for entry into the primary market. Two specifications of the model, differing in the nature of the new entrants' market, are presented; one admitting competitive adjustment in the scarcity premium of qualified entrants, while the other, a generalization of Thurow's job competition model, allocates employment through rationing. We obtain sharply different long-run determinants of income distribution between these alternative models. The result extends and qualifies existing interpretations on the schooling paradox observed in the U.S.     

A reformulation of the foundations of welfare economics

Neoclassical welfare economics takes an outcome-oriented approach that uses Pareto optimality as its benchmark for welfare maximization. When one looks at the remarkable improvements in economic welfare that have characterized market economies, most of those improvements in welfare have been due to economic progress that has introduced new and improved goods and services into the economy, and innovations in production methods that have brought costs down, leading to higher real incomes. Pareto optimality is only peripherally related to actual economic welfare, and no economist would argue that people are materially better off today than a century ago because the economy is closer to Pareto optimality. After analyzing the actual factors that lead to improvements in welfare, this paper suggests a reformulation of the foundations of welfare economics to replace the almost irrelevant outcome-oriented concept of Pareto optimality as the benchmark for evaluating welfare with a process-oriented benchmark based on factors that generate economic progress. The paper then explores some implications of this reformulation.

Changes in income distribution and welfare from greater immigration of unskilled workers

This paper considers the consequences of greater immigration of unskilled labor on income distribution and welfare in the receiving country. To address these issues, both the sending and receiving countries are represented in a static general equilibrium model which distinguishes between skilled and unskilled labor and which allows prices to be determined endogenously. In this framework an inflow of unskilled labor is likely to reduce wages of unskilled labor, but whether capital or skilled labor benefits depends upon demand elasticities, elasticities of substitution in production, and differences across countries in the productivity of unskilled labor. National welfare in the receiving country is likely to rise, to the extent that the relative price of importable goods falls, non-residents already in the country receive lower wages, immigrants receive lower wages than those paid to domestic workers, and immigrants cause little increased demand for public services and transfer programs.     

Housing as a wage and luxury good: absolute poverty and the distribution of income in supply-side economics

A fundamental tenet of supply-side economics is the ‘trickle-down’ effect, according to which a redistribution of income shares to those with higher incomes is supposed to result in sufficient income growth to make everyone better off. Apart from the inherent improbability of such an outcome, it is possible to argue that such a redistribution causes scarce resources to be transferred to luxury goods production, reducing the supply of the wage goods commodities in whose production those resources are used. The reduced availability of such commodities can give rise to an increase in absolute poverty (defined as the inability to afford basic necessities). This increase in absolute poverty forms a ‘threshold’ which must be more than balanced by an increase in real income due to the supply-side acceleration of economic growth before the ‘trickle-down’ effect may be said to have been realized. Some evidence from the UK is provided, together with a note on how this poverty mechanism affects the calculation of the retail Prices index.     

The welfare economics of the socialization of commodities

Socialization is defined for the purpose of this paper as the acquisition by the goverment of the total output of a commodity such as medical services and redistribution of that commodity equally to all citizens. Simple general equilibrium models are constructed to show that when decisions are reached by majority rule a commodity is more likely to be socialized the greater the inequality of income in the community and the less diverse the tastes of individuals for that commodity. The interests of producers of commodities are also taken into account, and strategic aspects of voting about socialization are discussed.     

On the second optimality theorem of welfare economics

To what extent does the second optimality theorem of welfare economics (every Pareto optimal allocation can be repesented as a Walras equilibrium allocation) remain valid when preferences are allowed to be locally satiated? It is always valid for an exchange economy, and is valid for a production economy if there is a consumer who is not locally satiated, but not in general for a production economy where all consumers are locally satiated. A generalized equilibrium is defined, which includes the Walras equilibrium as a special case. Every Pareto optimum can be represented as a generalized equilibrium allocation. Furthermore, every Pareto optimal utility distribution can be realized by a Walras equilibrium allocation.     

Normative economics and paternalism: the problem with the preference-satisfaction account of welfare

The normative turn of behavioral economics has led to a reconsideration of paternalism in normative economics. This article argues however that the preference-satisfaction account of welfare that still dominates welfare economics makes impossible to account for all the dimensions of the debate over paternalism. The laundered preferences approach and the alternative selves approach are two available frameworks to reconcile the consumer sovereignty principle that underlies the preference-satisfaction account with the fact that preferences are endogenous and context-dependent. I show however that neither of them is able to account for autonomy-related issues which are central in current debates over “soft” or “libertarian” paternalism. I suggest that a justification of paternalism compatible with liberal principles depends on the ability for reasonable persons to voluntarily consent to a collective choice rule with paternalistic tendencies. This argument relies on a distinction between preferences (which can be attached to other entities than persons) and values which is unknown to welfare economics.     

Economic inequality and paretian welfare economics: Some insinuating questions

This paper examines the academic soundness of the Pareto welfare criterion as a normative rule for evaluating alternative economic inequality scenarios and suggests that the criterion has several weaknesses, which weaken its usefulness. First, the Pareto principle is of limited use in the inequality debate because labor markets hardly satisfy the conditions of perfect competition, the pivotal assumption of the theory. Second, the proposition that competitive equilibrium leads to the “common good” of society is difficult to defend. Third, the Paretian welfare economics barely answers the questions society demands, because perfect competition does not guarantee fairness in the determination of relative prices in the initial situation of income distribution. Fourth, in the distribution theory, the marginal productivity principle determines the rewards to the factors of production. If we assume that rent, wage and interest incomes are determined by this theory, then questions arise about how profits, the potentially huge surpluses generated by the businesses, are distributed. Fifth, income distribution, being a public policy topic, is a political issue. However, Pareto's primary motivation in formulating the principle was to alienate the income distribution debate from political and policy discourses. Finally, by invoking the Pareto principle, economists are in fact avoiding the real issues of the public debate on personal distribution of income. Personal income distribution truly refers to division of income generated by a group of people working together and therefore, ought to be analysed with reference to the sector of employment. Thus, Tommy Franks' earning should be compared with that of a private, while an ordinary worker's salary should be compared with that of the CEO. History testifies that the public earning structure is much more equitable than that of the private sector. This poses a very serious question: Which earning structure reflects improvement in social welfare: public or private?     

Economic inequality and paretian welfare economics: Some insinuating questions

Capitalists, managers, unions and government today have espoused employee ownership and participation in order to further their own selfish ends. By so doing, they unwittingly usher in full workers' democracy, and concomittant radical transformations of the socioeconomic system which, ironically, will curtail their power. These transformations would stem from our populist ideological roots and would promote profound changes in the distribution of political power and in the way the society deals with technology.