IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ete/ceswps/636146.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Interpersonal comparisons by means of money metric utilities: why one should use the same reference prices for all

Author

Listed:
  • Bart Capéau
  • André Decoster
  • Liebrecht De Sadeleer

Abstract

We show that using different reference prices for different individuals in money metrics of well–being leads to violations of several normative properties of interpersonal welfare comparisons that have become popular in the fairness literature. An empirical illustration for Belgian single adults available for the labour market in 2015 shows that the violation of these principles in the labour consumption context, is all but exceptional

Suggested Citation

  • Bart Capéau & André Decoster & Liebrecht De Sadeleer, 2019. "Interpersonal comparisons by means of money metric utilities: why one should use the same reference prices for all," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 636146, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    • Handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:636146
    Note: paper number DPS 19.05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/536137
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, January.
    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. Brunori, Paolo & Ferreira, Francisco & Lugo, Maria Ana & Peragine, Vito, 2013. "Opportunity-sensitive poverty measurement," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6728, The World Bank.
    2. Mattéo Godin & Jean Hindriks, 2018. "An international comparison of school systems based on social mobility," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 499, pages 61-78.
    3. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    4. Dirk Van de gaer & Joost Vandenbossche & José Luis Figueroa, 2014. "Children's Health Opportunities and Project Evaluation: Mexico's Oportunidades Program," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(2), pages 282-310.
    5. Caulier, Jean-François & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent, 2015. "Allocation rules for coalitional network games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-88.
    6. Jacques Dreze, 2016. "Existence and multiplicity of temporary equilibria under nominal price rigidities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(1), pages 279-298, June.
    7. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    8. MUNK, Knud J., 2011. "Optimal taxation in the presence of a congested public good and an application to transport policy," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2011057, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. François Maniquet, 2017. "De chacun selon ses capacités à chacun selon ses besoins, ou (même) plus, s’il le souhaite," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(1), pages 119-129.
    10. CORNUEJOLS, Gérard & WOLSEY, Laurence & YILDIZ, Sercan, 2013. "Sufficiency of cut-generating functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013027, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    11. Maitreesh Ghatak & François Maniquet, 2019. "Universal Basic Income: Some Theoretical Aspects," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 895-928, August.
    12. Thomas Baudin & David de la Croix & Paula E. Gobbi, 2015. "Fertility and Childlessness in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(6), pages 1852-1882, June.
    13. Fleurbaey, Marc & Maniquet, François, 2017. "Fairness and well-being measurement," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 119-126.
    14. Dimitri Paolini & Pasquale Pistone & Giuseppe Pulina & Martin Zagler, 2016. "Tax treaties with developing countries and the allocation of taxing rights," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 383-404, December.
    15. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Jiannan Zhou, 2023. "Adjusting for Scale-Use Heterogeneity in Self-Reported Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 31728, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2012. "The Public Economics of Increasing Longevity," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 200(1), pages 41-74, March.
    17. Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2013. "Relative Concerns and Delays in Bargaining with Private Information," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-10, June.
    18. Daniel Kosiorowski & Jerzy P. Rydlewski, 2020. "Centrality-oriented causality. A study of EU agricultural subsidies and digital developement in Poland," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(3), pages 47-63.
    19. Laurence Jacquet & Dirk Van de Gaer, 2015. "Politiques fiscales optimales pour les bas revenus et principe de compensation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(3), pages 579-600.
    20. Luc Bauwens & Dimitris Korobilis, 2013. "Bayesian methods," Chapters, in: Nigar Hashimzade & Michael A. Thornton (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Empirical Macroeconomics, chapter 16, pages 363-380, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Money metric utility; well–being measurement; equivalent variation; labour supply;
    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:ete:ceswps:636146. 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: library EBIB (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://feb.kuleuven.be/Economics/ .

    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.