Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:54:33.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Welfare Measures: Some Comparative Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Dale Heien
Dale Heien*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access

Extract

Consumer's surplus has played an important role in evaluating agricultural price support programs as well as in other applications. Gardner and Wallace provide examples of the use of consumer's surplus in theoretical models, while numerous empirical studies (for example, Anderson, Sedjo and Wiseman, Johnson and Norton) have used the concept to measure welfare costs. Since its introduction by Dupuit and Marshall, the interpretation of consumer's surplus has been subject to change and controversy. In an important paper, Willig demonstrated that consumer's surplus is bounded by compensating variation (C) and equivalent variation (E) and derived rules of thumb showing how closely consumer's surplus approximates these appropriate welfare measures. These rules are compact and readily understandable to researchers doing applied welfare analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 102 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, K., “The Peculiar Rationality of Beef Import Quotas in Japan,” American Journal of Agricultural Economies, 65 (1983):108–112.Google Scholar
Braithwait, Steven D., “The Substitution Bias of the Laspeyres Price Index: An Analysis Using Estimated Cost-of-Living Indexes,” American Economic Review, 70 (1980):64–77.Google Scholar
Cory, Dennis C., Gum, Russell L., Martin, William and Brobben, Ray F., “Simplified Measurement of Consumer Welfare Change,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(81):715–717.Google Scholar
Deaton, Angus and Muellbauer, John, “An Almost Ideal Demand System,” American Economic Review, 70 (1980):312–327.Google Scholar
Diewert, W. E., “The Economic Theory of Index Numbers: A Survey,” Chapter 7 in Essays in the Theory and Measurement of Consumer Behavior, edited by Deaton, Angus (Cambridge University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Gardner, B., “Efficient Redistribution through Commodity Markets,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65 (1983):225–234.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A., “Exact Consumer's Surplus and Deadweight Loss,” American Economic Review, 71 (1981):662–677.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. R. and Norton, D. T., “Social Cost of the Tobacco Program Redux,” American Journal of Agricultural Economies, 65 (1983):117–119.Google Scholar
LaFrance, J. T., “The Structure of Constant Elasticity Demand Models,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68 (1986):543–552.Google Scholar
Pollak, Robert A. and Wales, Terrence J., “Estimation of the Linear Expenditure System,” Econometrica, 37 (1969):611–628.Google Scholar
Pollak, Robert A., “Habit Formation and Long-Run Utility Functions,” Journal of Economic Theory, 13 (1976):272–297.Google Scholar
Sedjo, R. A. and Wiseman, A. C., “The Effectiveness of an Export Restriction on Logs,” American Journal of Agricultural Economies, 65 (1983):113–116.Google Scholar
Vartia, Y. O., “Efficient Methods of Measuring Welfare Change and Compensated Income in Terms of Ordinary Demand Functions,” Econometrica, 51 (1983):79–98.Google Scholar
Wallace, T. D., “Measures of Social Costs of Agricultural Programs,” Journal of Farm Economics, 44 (1962):580–594.Google Scholar
Willig, Robert D., “Consumer Surplus Without Apology,” American Economic Review, 66 (1976):589–597.Google Scholar