IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v79y2003i247p425-433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intra‐Household Resource Allocation, Consumer Preferences and Commodity Tax Reforms: Australian Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Blacklow
  • Ranjan Ray

Abstract

Empirical analysis of household expenditure behaviour has traditionally ignored the issue of resource allocation between household members, assuming that they have identical or unitary preferences. This paper relaxes that assumption, develops a household sharing rule and proposes intra‐household demand systems that are able to identify differences in the preferences of members from conventional data. The resulting price and expenditure elasticities are used to demonstrate that collective demand models suggest different directions for commodity tax reforms to those implied by the traditional unitary model.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Blacklow & Ranjan Ray, 2003. "Intra‐Household Resource Allocation, Consumer Preferences and Commodity Tax Reforms: Australian Evidence," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 79(247), pages 425-433, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:79:y:2003:i:247:p:425-433
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2003.00142.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2003.00142.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2003.00142.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Decoster, Andre & Schokkaert, Erik, 1990. "Tax reform results with different demand systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 277-296, April.
    2. Ahmad, Ehtisham & Stern, Nicholas, 1984. "The theory of reform and indian indirect taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 259-298, December.
    3. Kaushik Basu, 2006. "Gender and Say: a Model of Household Behaviour with Endogenously Determined Balance of Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(511), pages 558-580, April.
    4. Madden, David, 1996. "Marginal Tax Reform and the Specification of Consumer Demand Systems," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 556-567, October.
    5. Piggott, John & Whalley, John, 1996. "The Tax Unit and Household Production," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(2), pages 398-418, April.
    6. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1.
    7. Paul A. Samuelson, 1956. "Social Indifference Curves," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 1-22.
    8. Manser, Marilyn & Brown, Murray, 1980. "Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 31-44, February.
    9. Apps, Patricia F. & Rees, Ray, 1988. "Taxation and the household," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-369, 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. Helmuth Cremer & Jean-Marie Lozachmeur & Kerstin Roeder, 2021. "Household bargaining, spouses’ consumption patterns and the design of commodity taxes," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(1), pages 225-247.
    2. Donni, Olivier & Molina, José Alberto, 2018. "Household Collective Models: Three Decades of Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 11915, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. S M Finlay, 2006. "Predictive models of expenditure and over-indebtedness for assessing the affordability of new consumer credit applications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(6), pages 655-669, June.
    4. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Botha, Ferdi & Ribar, David C., 2023. "For worse? Financial hardships and intra-household resource allocation among Australian couples," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Lori J. Curtis & JoAnn Kingston-Riechers, 2010. "Implications of the Introduction of the Goods and Services Tax for Families in Canada," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 36(4), pages 503-520, December.

    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. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    2. Bergolo, Marcelo & Galván, Estefanía, 2018. "Intra-household Behavioral Responses to Cash Transfer Programs. Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 100-118.
    3. Alberto Alesina & Andrea Ichino & Loukas Karabarbounis, 2011. "Gender-Based Taxation and the Division of Family Chores," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-40, May.
    4. Man Si, 2015. "Intrafamily bargaining and love," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 771-789, December.
    5. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2022. "Inequality measurement and tax/transfer policy," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(4), pages 953-984, August.
    7. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2009. "Non-unitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 4603, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Mizuki Komura, 2013. "Tax reform and endogenous gender bargaining power," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 175-192, June.
    9. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2006. "Les modèles non unitaires de comportement du ménage : un survol de la littérature," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(1), pages 9-52, mars-juin.
    10. Werner Güth & Radosveta Ivanova‐Stenzel & Sigve Tjotta, 2004. "Please, Marry Me! An Experimental Study of Risking a Joint Venture," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Patricia Apps, 2003. "Gender, Time Use and Models of the Household," CEPR Discussion Papers 464, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    12. Arthur-Holmes, Francis & Abrefa Busia, Kwaku, 2020. "Household dynamics and the bargaining power of women in artisanal and small-scale mining in sub-Saharan Africa: A Ghanaian case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    13. Aline Bütikofer & Michael Gerfin, 2017. "The economies of scale of living together and how they are shared: estimates based on a collective household model," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 433-453, June.
    14. Koolwal, Gayatri & Ray, Ranjan, 2002. "Estimating the endogenously determined intrahousehold balance of power and its impact on expenditure pattern : evidence from Nepal," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2814, The World Bank.
    15. Takuya Obara & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2020. "Optimal Taxation in an Endogenous Fertility Model with Non-Cooperative Couples," Discussion Paper Series 211, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Jan 2021.
    16. François Cochard & Hélène Couprie & Astrid Hopfensitz, 2016. "Do spouses cooperate? An experimental investigation," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-26, March.
    17. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2007. "Household Models: An Historical Perspective," CESifo Working Paper Series 2172, CESifo.
    18. Pierre-André Chiappori & José Alberto Molina, 2019. "The intra-spousal balance of power within the family: cross-cultural evidence," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 983, Boston College Department of Economics.
    19. Alessandro Cigno, 2007. "A Theoretical Analysis of the Effects of Legislation on Marriage, Fertility, Domestic Division of Labour, and the Education of Children," CESifo Working Paper Series 2143, CESifo.
    20. Jennifer Roberts & Karl Taylor, 2017. "Intra-household commuting choices and local labour markets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 734-757.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ecorec:v:79:y:2003:i:247:p:425-433. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.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.