IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revinw/v49y2003i4p555-568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregation of Utility and Equivalence Scales: A Solution to the Pangloss Critique

Author

Listed:
  • Jo Thori Lind

Abstract

Definitions of equivalence scales are usually based on a household utility function. This may be founded on an assumption of the household maximizing a welfare function of individual utilities. Basing inter‐household comparisons of welfare on this approach is fallacious because households put different weight on the utility of the various household members, a weighting that does not necessarily correspond to an ethically sound aggregation of utility. This is called the Pangloss critique. To solve the problem, I suggest keeping the model of household behavior, but to introduce a new function to aggregate the household members’ utilities. Equivalence scales based on this approach are shown to have desirable properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Jo Thori Lind, 2003. "Aggregation of Utility and Equivalence Scales: A Solution to the Pangloss Critique," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 49(4), pages 555-568, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revinw:v:49:y:2003:i:4:p:555-568
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0034-6586.2003.00104.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0034-6586.2003.00104.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0034-6586.2003.00104.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
    ---><---

    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:revinw:v:49:y:2003:i:4:p:555-568. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/iariwea.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.