IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/stanec/00006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reassessing the Diamond/Mirrlees Efficiency Theorem

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Hammond

Abstract

March 2000 Diamond and Mirrlees (1971) provide sufficient conditions for a second-best Pareto efficient allocation with linear commodity taxation to require efficient production when a finite set of consumers have continuous single-valued demand functions. This paper considers a continuum economy allowing indivisible goods, other individual non-convexities, and some forms of non-linear pricing for consumers. Provided consumers have appropriately monotone preferences and dispersed characteristics, robust sufficient conditions ensure that a strictly Pareto superior incentive compatible allocation with efficient production results when a suitable expansion of each consumer's budget constraint accompanies any reform which enhances production efficiency. Appropriate cost-benefit tests can identify small efficiency enhancing projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Hammond, 2000. "Reassessing the Diamond/Mirrlees Efficiency Theorem," Working Papers 00006, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:stanec:00006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-econ.stanford.edu/faculty/workp/swp00006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1988. "Cash versus Kind, Self-selection, and Efficient Transfers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 691-700, September.
    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. Anno, Hidekazu & Kurino, Morimitsu, 2016. "On the operation of multiple matching markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 166-185.
    2. Ahlberg, Joakim, 2006. "Optimal Taxation of Intermediate Goods in the Presence of Externalities: A Survey Towards the Transport Sector," Working Papers 2006:3, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    3. Schlee, Edward E. & Ali Khan, M., 2023. "Money-metrics in local welfare analysis: Pareto improvements and equity considerations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).

    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. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2014. "Toward an efficiency rationale for the public provision of private goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 375-408, June.
    3. Alloush, Mohamad & Taylor, J. Edward & Gupta, Anubhab & Rojas Valdes, Ruben Irvin & Gonzalez-Estrada, Ernesto, 2017. "Economic Life in Refugee Camps," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 334-347.
    4. Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2011. "Consumer welfare from publicly supplemented private goods: age and income effects on demand for health care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 865-885, December.
    5. Hidrobo, Melissa & Hoddinott, John & Peterman, Amber & Margolies, Amy & Moreira, Vanessa, 2014. "Cash, food, or vouchers? Evidence from a randomized experiment in northern Ecuador," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 144-156.
    6. Ellingsen, Tore, 1998. "Payments in Kind," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 244, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 10 Feb 2000.
    7. Blomquist, Soren & Christiansen, Vidar, 1998. "Topping Up or Opting Out? The Optimal Design of Public Provision Schemes," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(2), pages 399-411, May.
    8. Mohammad Akbarpour & Piotr Dworczak & Scott Duke Kominers, 2024. "Redistributive Allocation Mechanisms," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(6), pages 1831-1875.
    9. Jeremy Clark & Bonggeun Kim, 2007. "Paying vs. waiting in the pursuit of specific egalitarianism," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(3), pages 486-512, July.
    10. repec:zbw:inwedp:662016 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Alberto Pench, 2018. "Intra Generational Solidarity and Long Term Care: A Role for In Kind Transfers," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1), pages 35-57.
    12. Wagner, Alexander F. & Miller, Nolan H. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2006. "Screening budgets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 351-374, November.
    13. König, Tobias & Lausen, Tobias, 2016. "Relative consumption preferences and public provision of private goods," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2016-213, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Louis Kaplow, 2020. "A Unified Perspective on Efficiency, Redistribution, and Public Policy," NBER Working Papers 26683, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. John Leach, 2010. "Ex Post Welfare under Alternative Health Care Systems," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(6), pages 1027-1057, December.
    16. Maurice Marchand & Pierre Pestieau & María Racionero, 2003. "Optimal redistribution when different workers are indistinguishable," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 911-922, November.
    17. Sören Blomquist & Vidar Christiansen, 2003. "Is there a Case for Public Provision of Private Goods if Preferences are Heterogeneous? An Example with Day Care," CESifo Working Paper Series 938, CESifo.
    18. Slack, Sean & Ulph, David, 2014. "Optimal Universal and Categorical Benefits with Classification Errors and Imperfect Enforcement," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-13, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    19. Nuscheler, Robert & Roeder, Kerstin, 2013. "The political economy of long-term care," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 154-173.
    20. Pamela Campa & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2024. "Addressing Environmental Justice through In-Kind Court Settlements," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 415-446, February.
    21. Nava Ashraf & James Berry & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "Can Higher Prices Stimulate Product Use? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Zambia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2383-2413, December.

    More about this item

    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:wop:stanec:00006. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/destaus.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.