IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sfu/sfudps/dp12-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A critique of Ng's third-best theory

Author

Abstract

The theory of second best established that the effect on community welfare of any one policy change varies with the specific context in which that change occurs. In paper that has been frequently quoted to justify specific policies, Ng argues that fulfilling firstbest conditions piecemeal is an optimal policy under quite general conditions when neither full first nor second best optima are achievable. This paper first argues that Ng's conclusion does not follow from his own assumptions, which imply instead that the status quo should be maintained, whatever it might be. Next it gives one illustrative example showing how much damage can be caused by following Ng's advice. It then argues that when Ng's key assumption is replaced by one that is closer to the facts, there is no general a priori presumption for adopting any specific policy, including maintaining the status quo. The paper closes with some observations on the usefulness of welfare economics even when the full implications of second best theory are accepted.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard G. Lipsey, 2012. "A critique of Ng's third-best theory," Discussion Papers dp12-02, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    • Handle: RePEc:sfu:sfudps:dp12-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sfu.ca/repec-econ/sfu/sfudps/dp12-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1984. "Quasi-Pareto Social Improvements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1033-1050, December.
    2. Richard Lipsey, 2007. "Reflections on the general theory of second best at its golden jubilee," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(4), pages 349-364, August.
    3. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 2006. "The Power to Tax," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521027922, October.
    4. Yew-Kwang Ng, 2004. "First, Second or Third Best?," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Welfare Economics, chapter 9, pages 187-229, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 1987. "Equity, Efficiency and Financial Viability: Public‐Utility Pricing with Special Reference to Water Supply," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 20(3), pages 21-35, September.
    6. R. G. Lipsey & Kelvin Lancaster, 1956. "The General Theory of Second Best," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 24(1), pages 11-32.
    7. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 2000. "The Optimal Size of Public Spending and the Distortionary Cost of Taxation," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 53(2), pages 253-272, June.
    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. Richard G. Lipsey, 2013. "Some contentious issues in theory and policy in memory of Mark Blaug," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 6, pages 31-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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. Richard G. Lipsey, 2017. "Generality Versus Context Specificity: First, Second and Third Best in Theory and Policy," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 167-177, May.
    2. Liqun Liu, 2006. "Combining Distributional Weights and the Marginal Cost of Funds," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(1), pages 60-79, January.
    3. Kaplow, Louis, 2006. "Public goods and the distribution of income," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1627-1660, October.
    4. Dan Usher, 2006. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds Is the Ratio of Mean Income to Median Income," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(6), pages 687-711, November.
    5. Ming Chung Chang & Shufen Wu, 2011. "Should Marginal Cost of Public Funds include the Revenue Effect?," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 147(I), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Ming Chung Chang & Hsiao-Ping Peng & Yan-Ching Ho, 2016. "The Social Marginal Cost Curve and a Corner Solution of the Second-Best Level of Public Good Provision: A Review and an Extension," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 152(3), pages 209-241, July.
    7. David Wiens, 2016. "Assessing ideal theories," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(2), pages 132-149, May.
    8. José Luis Iparraguirre, 2020. "Economics and Ageing," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-29019-1, June.
    9. M. Molinari, 2014. "A Second Best Theory of Institutional Quality," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 545-559, December.
    10. Liqun Liu & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2004. "A Generalized Approach to Multigeneration Project Evaluation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(2), pages 377-396, October.
    11. Slemrod, Joel & Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 2001. "Integrating Expenditure and Tax Decisions: The Marginal Cost of Funds and the Marginal Benefit of Projects," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(2), pages 189-202, June.
    12. By Louis Kaplow, 2012. "Optimal Control Of Externalities In The Presence Of Income Taxation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(2), pages 487-509, May.
    13. Yew-Kwang Ng, 2017. "Theory of Third Best: How to Interpret and Apply," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 178-188, May.
    14. Byrnes, Liam & Brown, Colin, 2015. "Australia’s renewable energy policy: the case for intervention," MPRA Paper 64977, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 2018. "Ten rules for public economic policy," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 32-42.
    16. Ugur, Mehmet, 2009. "Liberalisation in a world of second best: evidence on European network industries," MPRA Paper 17873, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Oct 2009.
    17. Glenn Furton & Adam Martin, 2019. "Beyond market failure and government failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 197-216, January.
    18. Fogarty, James & Polyakov, Maksym & Iftekhar, MD Sayed, 2017. "Equitable and Efficient systems of water utility charges in the face of a changing water supply mix," Working Papers 264780, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    19. Louis Kaplow, 2003. "Transition Policy: A Conceptual Framework," NBER Working Papers 9596, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Barnett, W.S. & Masse, Leonard N., 2007. "Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and its policy implications," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 113-125, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Second best; third best; reaction function; piecemeal welfare policies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:sfu:sfudps:dp12-02. 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: Working Paper Coordinator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desfuca.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.