IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v15y1987i1p76-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effective Redistribution: Implications of a Basic Needs Approach to Public Assistance

Author

Listed:
  • Walter S. Misiolek
  • Harold W. Elder

Abstract

This study develops an alternative approach to the issue of transfer form, which uses the basic needs framework to produce a set of tools for evaluating the efficiency of redistribution programs. In contrast with the Pareto redistribution approach, we find that in-kind transfers are not always preferred over cash payments when donors are concerned only with the recipient's consumption of specific commodities. Furthermore, we find that justification of a mixed transfer system on efficiency grounds does not require the existence of both general and specific commodity externalities. The choice of transfer system is shown to be dependent on the recipient's spending propensities, the specific targets of public assistance, and the administrative costs of alternative programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Walter S. Misiolek & Harold W. Elder, 1987. "Cost-Effective Redistribution: Implications of a Basic Needs Approach to Public Assistance," Public Finance Review, , vol. 15(1), pages 76-97, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:15:y:1987:i:1:p:76-97
    DOI: 10.1177/109114218701500105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109114218701500105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/109114218701500105?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. Harberger, Arnold C, 1978. "On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 87-120, April.
    2. Murray, Michael P., 1980. "A reinterpretation of the traditional income-leisure model, with application to in-kind subsidy programs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 69-81, August.
    3. Edgar K. Browning, 1975. "The Externality Argument For In‐Kind Transfers: Some Critical Remarks," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 526-544, August.
    4. repec:bla:kyklos:v:28:y:1975:i:3:p:526-44 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Daly, George & Giertz, Fred J, 1972. "Welfare Economics and Welfare Reform," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(1), pages 131-138, March.
    6. Brennan, Geoffrey & Walsh, Cliff, 1977. "Pareto-Desirable Redistribution in Kind: An Impossibility Theorem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 987-990, December.
    7. Browning, Edgar K, 1981. "A Theory of Paternalistic In-Kind Transfers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(4), pages 579-597, October.
    8. Mark V. Pauly, 1970. "Efficiency In The Provision Of Consumption Subsidies," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 33-57, February.
    9. Olsen, Edgar O, 1971. "Some Theorems in the Theory of Efficient Transfers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(1), pages 166-176, Jan.-Feb..
    10. Tobin, James, 1970. "On Limiting the Domain of Inequality," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 263-277, October.
    11. E. Rothbarth, 1941. "The Measurement of Changes in Real Income under Conditions of Rationing," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 8(2), pages 100-107.
    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. Janet Currie & Firouz Gahvari, 2008. "Transfers in Cash and In-Kind: Theory Meets the Data," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 333-383, June.
    2. James D. Rodgers, 1973. "Distributional Externalities and the Optimal Form of Income Transfers," Public Finance Review, , vol. 1(3), pages 266-299, July.
    3. John F. Johnston, 1975. "Utility Interdependence and Redistribution: Methodological Implications for Welfare Economics and the Theory of the Public Household," Public Finance Review, , vol. 3(3), pages 195-228, July.
    4. Jérôme Ballet & Philippe Meral & Dawidson Razafimahatolotra, 2009. "Altruism, Paternalism and Transfers," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2009(3), pages 267-282.
    5. Bruno De Borger, 1986. "In-Kind Redistribution and Demand-Oriented Housing Subsidies: Some Micro-Simulation Results," Public Finance Review, , vol. 14(3), pages 235-261, July.
    6. Thomas D. Birch, 1987. "Basic Needs: Paternalistic Government Welfare Policy with Distortionary Taxation," Public Finance Review, , vol. 15(3), pages 298-321, July.
    7. Bruce Yandle Jr., 1974. "Welfare Programs and Donor-Recipient Adjustments," Public Finance Review, , vol. 2(3), pages 322-329, July.
    8. Siu, Jade & Sterck, Olivier & Rodgers, Cory, 2023. "The freedom to choose: Theory and quasi-experimental evidence on cash transfer restrictions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. W. Erwin Diewert & Robert C. Feenstra, 2021. "Estimating the Benefits of New Products," NBER Chapters, in: Big Data for Twenty-First-Century Economic Statistics, pages 437-473, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Blomquist, Soren & Micheletto, Luca, 2006. "Optimal redistributive taxation when government's and agents' preferences differ," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1215-1233, August.
    11. Eddie Dekel & Matthew O. Jackson & Asher Wolinsky, 2004. "Vote Buying," Discussion Papers 1386, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
      • Jackson, Matthew O. & Dekel, Eddie & Wolinsky, Asher, 2005. "Vote buying," Working Papers 1215, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
      • Eddie Dekel & Matthew O. Jackson & Asher Wolinsky, 2005. "Vote Buying," Others 0503006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. repec:ags:ucdegw:232849 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Udo Ebert, 1986. "Equity and distribution in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 67-78, December.
    14. Heckman, James, 2001. "Accounting for Heterogeneity, Diversity and General Equilibrium in Evaluating Social Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(475), pages 654-699, November.
    15. Diewert, W, Erwin & Feenstra, Robert, 2017. "Estimating the Benefits and Costs of New and Disappearing Products," Microeconomics.ca working papers tina_marandola-2017-12, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 19 Dec 2017.
    16. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Peter D. Linneman & Isaac F. Megbolugbe, 1994. "Privatisation and Housing Policy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 31(4-5), pages 635-651, May.
    18. Ernst Jonsson, 1984. "Recurrent cost and performance comparisons within public administration: A method of generating efficiency-promoting competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 185-192, January.
    19. Peter Zweifel, 2006. "Auftrag und Grenzen der Sozialen Krankenversicherung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(s1), pages 5-26, May.
    20. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson, 2019. "Should values of time be differentiated?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 357-375, May.
    21. Sudip Ranjan Basu, 2017. "Do data show divergence? Revisiting global income inequality trends," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 24(1), pages 23-53, June.

    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:sae:pubfin:v:15:y:1987:i:1:p:76-97. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.