IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/0114.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Measurement of Benefits in an Urban Context: Some General Equilibrium Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Courant
  • Daniel L. Rubinfeld

Abstract

The validity of using local market data to measure the benefits associated with policies adopted in an urban area is investigated .It is shown that the rest of the world is affected by taxing decisions undertaken in a single urban area, so that local data cannot perfectly measure the welfare effects of a policy change. Specifically, the fact that the willingness to pay for a tax increase is positive in the rest of the world suggests that cost-benefit analyses which do not account for the rest of the world may be biased.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Courant & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 1975. "On the Measurement of Benefits in an Urban Context: Some General Equilibrium Issues," NBER Working Papers 0114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:0114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w0114.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harberger, Arnold C, 1971. "Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 785-797, September.
    2. Krauss, Melvyn B, 1972. "Differential Tax Incidence: Large versus Small Tax Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(1), pages 193-197, Jan.-Feb..
    3. Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 1978. "The long-run effects of a residential property tax and local public services," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 241-262, April.
    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. Kooten, G. Cornelis van, 2013. "Modeling Forest Trade in Logs and Lumber: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis," Working Papers 149182, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    2. 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.
    3. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Abdou, Dr. Dyaa K., 1982. "Government Distribution and Price Policies for Major Subsidized food Commodities in Egypt: An Overview," Working Papers 232845, University of California, Davis, Agricultural Development Systems: Egypt Project.
    5. Jian Chen & David H. Downs, 2013. "Property Tax and Tenure Choice: Implications for China," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 16(3), pages 323-343.
    6. Glenn W Harrison & Thomas F Rutherford & David G Tarr, 1997. "Opciones de Política Comercial para Chile: Una Evaluación Cuantitativa," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 34(102), pages 101-137.
    7. R. M. Parish, 1976. "The Scope of Benefit‐Cost Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 52(3), pages 302-314, September.
    8. Khalid Iqbal, 2017. "Welfare Economics: A Story of Existence," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 20(64), pages 75-83, June.
    9. Mikhail Miklyaev & Shahryar Afra & Melani Schultz & Adeline Awantang & Mathilde Laval, 2017. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Mali’s Sorghum and Millet Value Chains," Development Discussion Papers 2017-03, JDI Executive Programs.
    10. Gylfason, Thorvaldur, 1998. "Output gains from economic stabilization," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 81-96, June.
    11. Paul S. Kochanowski & Saul Pleeter, 1977. "Compensation With Induced Factor Movements in a Simple General Equilibrium Model," Public Finance Review, , vol. 5(1), pages 23-39, January.
    12. Neven, Damien J. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Consumer surplus vs. welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 829-848, December.
    13. Diane Coyle & Mark Fabian & Eric Beinhocker & Tim Besley & Margaret Stevens, 2023. "Is it time to reboot welfare economics? Overview," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 109-121, June.
    14. Hassan, Rashid M., 1989. "A temporary general equilibrium model with endogenous money for economic policy analysis in Sudan," ISU General Staff Papers 1989010108000010129, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Glenn Jenkins & CHUN-YAN KUO & JOHN GIRALDEZ, 2007. "Canadian Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide," Development Discussion Papers 2007-03, JDI Executive Programs.
    16. Udo Ebert, 1986. "Equity and distribution in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 67-78, December.
    17. Alston, Julian M., 1991. "Research Benefits in a Multimarket Setting: A Review," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(01), pages 1-30, April.
    18. Andriamananjara, Soamiely & Dean, Judith & Spinanger, Dean, 2004. "Trading Apparel: Developing Countries in 2005," Conference papers 331281, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Brynjolfsson, Erik & Collis, Avinash & Diewert, W. Erwin & Eggers, Felix & Fox, Kevin J., 2019. "GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods in the Digital Economy," OSF Preprints sptfu, Center for Open Science.
    20. Haughwout, Andrew F. & Inman, Robert P., 2001. "Fiscal policies in open cities with firms and households," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2-3), pages 147-180, April.

    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:nbr:nberwo:0114. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.