IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dkn/econwp/eco_2009_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decision-making in a social welfare context

Author

Listed:
  • Scarborough, Helen
  • Burton, Michael
  • Bennett, Jeff

Abstract

This paper presents analysis of the decision-making strategies adopted by respondents when confronted with potential policy options that include changes in both aggregate levels of welfare and equity in distribution. The analysis is based on the results of a choice experiment designed to estimate intergenerational distributional preferences. Non-linear welfare functions are employed within a conventional conditional logit framework. The heuristics employed by respondents in the stated preference context provide valuable insights into the application of welfare principles by respondents in determining trade-offs between the potential changes in the well-being of different generations.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Scarborough, Helen & Burton, Michael & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "Decision-making in a social welfare context," Working Papers eco_2009_02, Deakin University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2009_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myles,Gareth D., 1995. "Public Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497695, September.
    2. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, September.
    3. Johnstone, Nick & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 1998. "The Distributional Effects of Environmental Tax Reform," Discussion Papers 24140, International Institute for Environment and Development, Environmental Economics Programme.
    4. Kopp, Raymond J. & Portney, Paul R., 1997. "Mock Referenda for Intergenerational Decision-making," Discussion Papers 10745, Resources for the Future.
    5. Frank Krysiak & Daniela Krysiak, 2006. "Sustainability with Uncertain Future Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 511-531, April.
    6. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "Social justice and the distribution of income," Handbook of Income Distribution, in: A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), Handbook of Income Distribution, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 59-85, Elsevier.
    7. Burton, Michael P., 2002. "A Fair Go: Attitudes towards equity in natural resource management in WA," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 173977, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), 2006. "The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3800.
    9. Scarborough, Helen & Bennett, Jeff, 2008. "Estimating intergenerational distribution preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 575-583, July.
    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. Scarborough, Helen, 2011. "Intergenerational equity and the social discount rate," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-14.
    2. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.

    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. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    2. Scarborough, Helen & Bennett, Jeff, 2008. "Estimating intergenerational distribution preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 575-583, July.
    3. Amitrajeet Batabyal & Hamid Beladi, 2012. "A simple auction mechanism for locating noxious facilities," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-6, March.
    4. Eloi Laurent, 2010. "Environmental justice and environmental inequalities: A European perspective," Working Papers hal-01069412, HAL.
    5. Karin Mayr, 2003. "Immigration and Majority Voting on Income Redistriubtion-Is there a Case for Opposition from Natives?," Economics working papers 2003-08, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    6. D M Hanink & K White, 1999. "Distance Effects in the Demand for Wildland Recreational Services: The Case of National Parks in the United States," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(3), pages 477-492, March.
    7. Pierre-Pascal Gendron, 1996. "Corporation Tax Asymmetries: An Oligopolistic Supergame Analysis," Working Papers ecpap-96-04, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    8. Andreas HaufLer & Guttorm Schjelderup & Frank Stähler, 2005. "Barriers to Trade and Imperfect Competition: The Choice of Commodity Tax Base," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(3), pages 281-300, May.
    9. Volker Meier, 2013. "One-sided private provision of public goods with implicit Lindahl pricing," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 181-186, October.
    10. Lin, Shuanglin, 2008. "China's value-added tax reform, capital accumulation, and welfare implications," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 197-214, June.
    11. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Rauscher, Michael, 1996. "Sustainable Development and Complex Ecosystems. An Economist's View," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 02, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    13. Wolfgang Buchholz & Wolfgang Peters, 2007. "Justifying the Lindahl solution as an outcome of fair cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 157-169, October.
    14. Katri Kosonen, 2012. "Regressivity of environmental taxation: myth or reality?," Taxation Papers 32, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    15. Roberto José Arias, 2004. "Reglas de selección para la fiscalización de Impuestos a las Ventas," Revista de Economía y Estadística, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Instituto de Economía y Finanzas, vol. 42(2), pages 29-62, Diciembre.
    16. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    17. Richter, Wolfram F., 2009. "Taxing education in Ramsey's tradition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(11-12), pages 1254-1260, December.
    18. Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals' assessment of market justice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 625-641.
    19. Bergland, Olvar & Kim, Seung-Woo & McLeod, Don & Romstad, Eirik, 1989. "Estimation of Optimal Congestion Levels: Deer Hunting in Western Oregon," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270485, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Loukas Karabarbounis & Andrea Ichino & Alberto Alesina, 2008. "Gender based Taxation," 2008 Meeting Papers 500, Society for Economic Dynamics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intergenerational Equity; Distribution; Choice Modelling;
    All these 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:dkn:econwp:eco_2009_02. 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: Xueli Tang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedeaau.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.