Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:25:31.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues in Pesticide Policy: Discussion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

David G. Abler
David G. Abler*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Extract

The paper by Taylor has merit because it is provocative, but like many things, this can be overdone. His self-described diatribe against neoclassical economics is in special need of a response. He appears to dismiss the notion of utility maximization, but in fact there is nothing to dismiss. Although many economists do not realize this fact, the assumption of utility maximization is not testable. Give me any pattern of behavior by an individual (or a society) and I can give you a utility function which, when maximized subject to whatever constraints that person or society may face, yields the observed behavior. An obvious example would be U = 1 for the observed behavior and U = 0 otherwise, although more complicated examples could also be constructed. The power of economics lies not in utility maximization, but in the specification of constraints on choice and in describing how changes in the constraints affect behavior. To illustrate, even a consumer who made decisions randomly would tend to have downward-sloping demand curves because of his or her budget constraint (Becker).

Type
Invited Presentation
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 93 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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

Abler, David G., and Shortle, James S. “Innovation and Environmental Quality: The Case of EC and US Agriculture.” In Environmental Policy and the Economy, edited by Dietz, Frank J., van der Ploeg, Frederick, and van der Straaten, Jan. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
Abler, David G., and Shortle, James S. “Environmental and Farm Commodity Policy Linkages in the US and the EC.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 19 (1992):197–217.Google Scholar
Bar-Shira, Ziv. “Nonparametric Test of the Expected Utility Hypothesis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 (1992):523–33.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 70 (1962):1–13.Google Scholar
Borenstein, Severin, and Zimmerman, Martin B. “Market Incentives for Safe Commercial Airline Operation.” American Economic Review 78 (1988):913–35.Google Scholar
Cropper, Maureen L., Evans, William N., Berardi, Stephen J., Ducla-Soares, Maria M., and Portney, Paul R. “The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making.” Journal of Political Economy 100 (1992):175–97.Google Scholar
Deaton, Angus, and Muellbauer, John. Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Hoffer, George E., Pruitt, Stephen W., and Riley, Robert J. “The Impact of Product Recalls on the Wealth of Sellers: A Reexamination.” Journal of Political Economy 96 (1988):663–70.Google Scholar
Jarrell, Gregg A., and Peltzman, Sam. “The Impact of Product Recalls on the Wealth of Sellers.” Journal of Political Economy 93 (1985):512–36.Google Scholar
Meyer, Jack. “Two-Moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization.” American Economic Review 77 (1987):421–30.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Mark L., and Maloney, Michael T. “Crisis in the Cockpit? The Role of Market Forces in Promoting Air Travel Safety.” Journal of Law and Economics 22 (1989):329–55.Google Scholar