Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 141–161 | Cite as

Rotten spouses, family transfers, and public goods

Original Paper

Abstract

We show that once interfamily exchanges are considered, Becker’s rotten kids mechanism has some remarkable, hitherto unnoticed, implications. Specifically, Cornes and Silva’s (J Polit Econ 107(5):1034–1040, 1999) result of efficiency in the contribution game amongst siblings extends to a setting where the contributors (spouses) belong to different families. More strikingly still, the mechanism may also have dramatic redistributive implications. In particular, we show that the rotten kids mechanism combined with a contribution game to a household public good may lead to an astonishing equalization of consumptions between and within families, even when their parents’ wealth levels differ. The most striking results obtain when wages are equal and when parents’ initial wealth levels are not too different. For very large wealth differences, the mechanism must be supplemented by a (mandatory) transfer that brings them back into the relevant range. When wages differ but are similar, the outcome will be near efficient (and near egalitarian).

Keywords

Rotten kids Altruism Private provision of public good Subgame perfect equilibrium Family aid 

JEL Classification

D13 D61 D64 

References

  1. Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 82(6):1063–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker GS (1991) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstrom TC, Blume L, Varian H (1986) On the private provision of public goods. J Public Econ 29:25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstrom TC (1989) A fresh look at the rotten kids theorem–and other household mysteries. J Polit Econ 97(5):1138–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernheim BD, Bagwell K (1988) Is everything neutral? J Polit Econ:308–338Google Scholar
  6. Bernheim BD, Shleifer A, Summers LH (1985) The strategic bequest motive. J Polit Econ 93(6):1045–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce N, Waldman M (1990) The rotten-kid theorem meets the Samaritan’s dilemma. Q J Econ 105:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiappori P-A, Werning I (2002) Comment on ‘Rotten Kids, Purity, and Perfection’. J Polit Econ 110(2):475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan AJ, Cornes RC, Silva ECD (2000) Pure public goods and income redistribution in a federation with decentralized leadership and imperfect labor mobility. J Public Econ 77:265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cigno A (2014) Conflict and cooperation within the family, and between the state and the family, in the provision of old-age security, CHILD WP No 22Google Scholar
  11. Cornes RC, Itaya J, Tanaka A (2012) Private provision of public goods between families. J Popul Econ 24:1451–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornes RC, Silva ECD (1999) Rotten kids, purity, and perfection. J Polit Econ 107(5):1034–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cremer H, Pestieau P, Ponthière G (2012) The economics of long-term care: a survey. Nordic Economic Policy Review 2:107–148Google Scholar
  14. Cremer H, Roeder K (2013) Long-term care and lazy rotten kids, IZA Discussion Paper No 7565Google Scholar
  15. Greenwood J, Guner N, Kocharkov G, Santos C (2014) Marry your like: assortative mating and income inequality, IZA Discussion Paper, No 7895Google Scholar
  16. Hirshleifer J (1977) Shakespeare vs. Becker on altruism: the importance of having the last word. J Econ Lit 15(2):500–502Google Scholar
  17. Laferrère A, Wolff F-C (2006) Microeconomic models of family transfers. In: Kolm S-C, Ythier JM (eds) Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 879–969Google Scholar
  18. Norton EC (2000) Long-term care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds) Handbook of health economics, vol 1B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 956–94Google Scholar
  19. Norton E, Nicholas L, Huang SS-H (2014) Informal care and inter-vivos transfers: results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Mature Women. The B.E. Journal of Economics Analysis & Policy 14(2):377–400Google Scholar
  20. Schwartz CR (2010) Earnings inequality and the changing association between spouses’ earnings. Am J Sociol 115(5):1524–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwartz CR, Mare RD (2005) Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography 42(4):621–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Torche F (2010) Educational assortative mating and economic inequality: a comparative analysis of three Latin American countries. Demography 47(2):481–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vives X (2001) Oligopoly pricing: old ideas and new tools. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Warr PG (1983) The private provision of a public good is independent of the distribution of income. Econ Lett 13(2):207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Toulouse School of EconomicsToulouseFrance
  2. 2.University of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations