Advertisement

Household decisions and equivalence scales

  • Udo Ebert
  • Patrick Moyes
Original Paper

Abstract

Considering an economy with a private good and a household good with a variable degree of publicness, we examine the consequences of two extreme decision rules: (1) the cooperative model, where households maximize the welfare of their members, and (2) the noncooperative model, where each household’s member maximizes her own utility. While publicness of the household good is necessary and sufficient for economies of size to exist and to increase with family size under cooperation, it is shown that this no longer holds in the absence of cooperation. On the other hand, the cooperative rule leads to less generous scales than the noncooperative one.

Keywords

Equivalence scales Household decision rule Economies of size 

JEL Classification

D31 D63 

References

  1. Atkinson AB, Bourguignon B (1987) Income distributions and differences in needs. In: Feiwel GR (ed) Arrow and the foundation of the theory of economic policy. Macmillan, New York, pp 350–370Google Scholar
  2. Bazen S, Moyes P (2003) International comparisons of income distributions. Res Econ Inequal 9:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker G (1981) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstrom TC (1997) A survey of theories of the family. In: Rosenzweig MR, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics, vol 1, part 1. Elsevier North-Holland, New York, pp 21–79Google Scholar
  5. Bergstrom TC, Blume L, Varian H (1986) On the private provision of public goods. J Public Econ 29:25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1993) Adult-equivalence scales and the economic implementation of interpersonal comparisons of well-being. Soc Choice Welf 10:335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1994) Measuring the cost of children: a theoretical framework. In: Blundell R, Preston I, Walker I (eds) The measurement of household welfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 51–69Google Scholar
  8. Blundell R, Lewbel A (1991) The information content of equivalence scales. J Econom 50:49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borcherding TE, Deacon RT (1972) The demand for services of non-federal government. Am Econ Rev 62:842–853Google Scholar
  10. Bourguignon F (1989) Family size and social utility: income distribution dominance criteria. J Econom 42:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourguignon F (1999) The cost of children: may the collective approach to household behavior help? J Popul Econ 12:503–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourguignon F, Chiappori P-A (1992) Collective models of household behavior: an introduction. Eur Econ Rev 36:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buhmann B, Rainwater L, Schmaus G, Smeeding T (1988) Equivalence scales, well-being, inequality and poverty: sensitivity estimates across ten countries using the luxembourg income study (LIS) database. Rev Income Wealth 34:115–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coulter FAE, Cowell FA, Jenkins SP (1992a) Differences in needs and assessment of income distributions. Bull Econ Res 44:77–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coulter FAE, Cowell FA, Jenkins SP (1992b) Equivalence scale relativities and the extent of inequality and poverty. Econ J 102:1067–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deaton A, Paxson C (1998) Economies of scale, household size, and the demand for food. J Polit Econ 106:897–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaldson D, Pendakur K (2004) Equivalent-expenditure functions and expenditure-dependent equivalence scales. J Public Econ 88:175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donaldson D, Pendakur K (2006) The identification of fixed costs from consumer behavior. J Bus Econ Stat 24:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebert U, Moyes P (2003) Equivalence scales reconsidered. Econometrica 71(71):319–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebert U, Moyes P (2006) Isoelastic equivalence scales. Grape, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV, PessacGoogle Scholar
  21. Figini P (1998) Inequality measures, equivalence scales and adjustment for household size and composition. Luxemburg Income Study, Working Paper 185Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins SP, Lambert PJ (1993) Ranking income distributions when needs differ. Rev Income Wealth 39:337–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koulovatianos C, Schröder K, Schmidt U (2005a) On the income dependence of equivalence scales. J Public Econ 89:967–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koulovatianos C, Schröder K, Schmidt U (2005b) Properties of equivalence scales in different countries. J Econom 86:19–27Google Scholar
  25. Lanjouw P, Ravallion M (1995) Poverty and household size. Econ J 105:1415–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für VolkswirtschaftslehreCarl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.GREThA (UMR CNRS 5113)Université Montesquieu Bordeaux 4, CNRSPessacFrance

Personalised recommendations