Climatic Change

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 61–81 | Cite as

The Effects of Climate on Welfare and Well-Being in Russia

  • P. Frijters
  • B. M. S. Van Praag
Article

Abstract

This paper measures the concepts of welfare and well-being in Russia on the basis of two large Russian household surveys, carried out in 1993 and 1994. Welfare refers to satisfaction with income and well-being refers to satisfaction with life as a whole. This paper investigates how climate conditions in various parts of Russia affect the cost of living and well-being. Climate equivalence scales have been constructed for both welfare and well-being.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D.: 1991, ‘Adult Equivalence Scales, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being and Applied Welfare Economics’, in Elster, J. and Roemer, J. (eds.), Interpersonal Comparisons and Distributive Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Blomquist, G. C., Berger, M. C., and Hoehn, J. P.: 1988, ‘New Estimates of the Quality of Life in Urban Areas’, Amer. Econ. Rev. 78, 89–107.Google Scholar
  3. Brickman, P. and Campbell, D. T.: 1971, ‘Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society’, in Apley, M. H. (ed.), Adaptation-Level Theory: A Symposium, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Cantril, H.: 1965, The Pattern of Human Concerns, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A.: 1994, ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?’, J. Econ. Perspect. 8, 45–64.Google Scholar
  6. Frijters, P. and Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1995, ‘Estimates of Poverty Ratios and Equivalence Scales for Russia and Parts of the Former U.S.S.R.’, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers no. 95–149.Google Scholar
  7. Hagenaars, A. J. M.: 1986, The Perception of Poverty, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Hanemann, W. M.: 1994, ‘Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation’, J. Econ. Perspect. 8, 19–43.Google Scholar
  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., and Ephraums, J. J. (eds.): 1990, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Kaizer, H. F.: 1974, ‘An Index of Factorial Simplicity’, Psychometrica 39, 31–36.Google Scholar
  11. Maddison, D. and Bigano, A.: 1997, ‘The Amenity Value of the Italian Climate’, Nota di Lavoro 11.97, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
  12. Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W. D., and Shaw, D.: 1994, ‘The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis’, Amer. Econ. Rev. 84, 753–771.Google Scholar
  13. Müller, M. J.: 1983, Handbuch ausgewählter Klimatstationen der Erde, Gerold Richter, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  14. Nordhaus, W.: 1990, ‘Greenhouse Economics’, The Economist, 7 July.Google Scholar
  15. Parducci, A.: 1995, Happiness, Pleasure and Judgment, the Contextual Theory and Its Applications, Elbaum Associates, Mahwah, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Perman, R.: 1994, ‘The Economics of the Greenhouse Effects’, J. Econ. Surveys 8, 99–132.Google Scholar
  17. Pollak, R. A. and Wales, T. J.: 1979, ‘Equity: the Individual Versus the Family. Welfare Comparisons and Equivalence Scales’, Amer. Econ. Rev. 69, 216–221.Google Scholar
  18. Plug, E. and Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1995a, ‘Family Equivalence Scales Within a Narrow and Broad Welfare Context’, J. Income Distrib. 4, 171–186.Google Scholar
  19. Plug, E. and Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1995b, ‘Similarity in Response Behaviour Between Household Members: An Application to Income Evaluation’, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Roback, J.: 1982, ‘Wages, Rents and the Quality of Life’, J. Pol. Econ. 90, 1257–1278.Google Scholar
  21. Roback, J.: 1988, ‘Wages, Rents and Amenities: Differences Among Workers and Regions’, Econ. Enquiry 26, 23–41.Google Scholar
  22. Robbins, L.: 1932, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, McMillan, London.Google Scholar
  23. Seidl, C.: 1994, ‘How Sensible is the Leyden Individual Welfare Function of Income?’, Eur. Econ. Rev. 38, 1633–1659.Google Scholar
  24. Sen, A.: 1996, ‘Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement’, Econometrica 44, 219–231.Google Scholar
  25. Serfling, R. J.: 1981, Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Van Herwaarden, F. G. and Kapteyn, A.: 1981, ‘Empirical Comparisons of the Shape of Welfare Functions’, Eur. Econ. Rev. 15, 261–286.Google Scholar
  27. Van der Stadt, H., Kapteyn, A., and Van der Geer, S. A.: 1985, ‘The Relativity of Utility: Evidence from Panel Data’, Rev. Econ. Stat. 67, 179–187.Google Scholar
  28. Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1971, ‘The Welfare Function of Income in Belgium: An Empirical Investigation’, Eur. Econ. Rev. Spring, 337–369.Google Scholar
  29. Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1988, ‘Climate Equivalence Scales, an Application of a General Method’, Eur. Econ. Rev. 32, 1019–1024.Google Scholar
  30. Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1991, ‘Ordinal and Cardinal Utility: An Integration of the Two Dimensions of the Welfare Concept’, J. Econometrics 50, 69–89.Google Scholar
  31. Van Praag, B. M. S.: 1994, ‘Ordinal and Cardinal Utility: An Integration of the Two Dimensions of the Welfare Concept’, in Blundell, R., Preston, I., and Walker, I. (eds.), The Measurement of Household Welfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 86–110.Google Scholar
  32. Van Praag, B. M. S. and Flik, R. J.: 1992, ‘Poverty Lines and Equivalence Scales. A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation’, in Poverty Measurement for Economies in Transition in Eastern Europe, International Scientific Conference, Warsaw, 7–9 October, Polish Statistical Association, Central Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  33. Van Praag, B. M. S. and Kapteyn, A.: 1973, ‘Further Evidence on the Individual Welfare Function of Income: An Empirical Investigation in the Netherlands’, Eur. Econ. Rev. 4, 33–62.Google Scholar
  34. Van Praag, B. M. S., Goedhart, T., and Kapteyn, A.: 1980, ‘The Poverty Line — A Pilot Survey in Europe’, Rev. Econ. Stat. 17, 461–465.Google Scholar
  35. Van Praag, B. M. S. and Kapteyn, A.: 1994, ‘How Sensible is the Leyden Individual Welfare Function of Income? A Reply’, Eur. Econ. Rev. 38, 1817–1825.Google Scholar
  36. Van Praag, B. M. S. and Plug, E.: 1995, ‘New Developments in the Measurement of Welfare and Well-Being’, The Ragnar Frisch Centennial 1995, Oslo.Google Scholar
  37. Van der Sar, N. L., Van Praag, B. M. S., and Dubnoff, S.: 1988, ‘Evaluation Questions and Income Utility’, in Munier, B. (ed.), Risk, Decision and Rationality, Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, pp. 77–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Frijters
    • 1
  • B. M. S. Van Praag
    • 1
  1. 1.Tinbergen Institute and the Foundation of Economic ResearchUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations