27.06.2013 Views

Lecture Note 15: Social Cost Benefit Analysis - University of ...

Lecture Note 15: Social Cost Benefit Analysis - University of ...

Lecture Note 15: Social Cost Benefit Analysis - University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

convincing case for leaving distribution to one side and focus on e¢ ciency?<br />

To set the stage, let us return to the framework from section ?? but instead<br />

<strong>of</strong> assuming that all consumers are identical, let us assume that they di¤er<br />

in their tastes (i.e., have di¤erent utility function), that they have di¤erent<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> income (e.g., because they got di¤erent types <strong>of</strong> human capital that<br />

allow them to hold di¤erent types <strong>of</strong> jobs or got other sources <strong>of</strong> income than<br />

wage income), and that the social welfare function is individualistic, but not<br />

necessarily utilitarian. More speci…cally, replace assumptions 1, 3 and 7 from<br />

lecture note 13-14 by 1’, 3, and 7’:<br />

1’ The economy is populated by many di¤erent consumers, h = 1; ::; H.<br />

1. There are two goods x1 and x2 with consumer prices q = (q1; q2) and<br />

producer prices p = (p1; p2). The two goods are private goods and they<br />

are sold in markets, i.e., a market price exists for both <strong>of</strong> them.<br />

3’ The direct utility function <strong>of</strong> consumer h is Uh(x h 1; x h 2) and the budget<br />

constraint is q1x h 1 + q2x h 2 = m h where m h is the given income <strong>of</strong> consumer<br />

h.<br />

2. Each consumer maximizes utility subject to the budget constraint. This<br />

involves buying each <strong>of</strong> the two goods up to the point where<br />

@Uh<br />

@x1<br />

@Uh<br />

@x2<br />

= hq1 (1)<br />

= hq2; (2)<br />

where h is the marginal utility <strong>of</strong> income (the Lagrange multiplier on the<br />

budget constraint) for consumer h.<br />

3. The two goods are produced with capital and labour, l0 and k. The total<br />

supply <strong>of</strong> these are assumed to be …xed. The producer prices <strong>of</strong> labour<br />

and capital, respectively, are p0 and pk.<br />

4. The production functions are x1 = F 1 (l 1 0; k 1 ) and x2 = F 2 (l 2 0; k 2 ) where<br />

l j<br />

0 and kj is the amount <strong>of</strong> labour and capital, respectively employed in<br />

the production <strong>of</strong> the two goods.<br />

7’ <strong>Social</strong> welfare is individualistic, i.e.,<br />

with<br />

@SW F<br />

@Uh<br />

SW F (U1; :::; UH) (3)<br />

0. This includes as a special case the utilitarian social<br />

welfare function SW F = P H<br />

h=1 Uh but we shall also consider other speci-<br />

…cations.<br />

Suppose that we want to evaluate the net social value <strong>of</strong> a (small) project<br />

that increases the supply <strong>of</strong> x1 by x h 1 and, as a consequence, reduces the supply<br />

2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!