Household Models: An Historical Perspective

P. Apps, R. Rees
{"title":"Household Models: An Historical Perspective","authors":"P. Apps, R. Rees","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1069402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a survey of the literature on theoretical models of the household, paying particular attention to some of the earlier contributions, and using them to place the current state of the theory in perspective. One of its aims is to suggest that the literature’s neglect of Samuelson’s proposal, that households can be modelled as if they maximised a form of social welfare function, was a mistake. However, the idea following directly from the Nash bargaining models, that the household’s preference ordering over the utility profiles of its members depends on exogenous variables, in particular wage rates and non-wage incomes, is an important one. Combined with Samuelson’s proposal, it can be made the basis for a general approach to modelling household decision taking, flexible enough to encompass non-cooperative behaviour and Pareto inefficiencies arising out of the inevitable incompleteness and unenforceability of domestic agreements. We also point out the importance of household production and some of the implications of its neglect in modelling households. Above all, the aim is to provide a deeper understanding of the current theoretical literature on household economics by means of a survey of its history.","PeriodicalId":358833,"journal":{"name":"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"8 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"87","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1069402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 87

Abstract

This paper is a survey of the literature on theoretical models of the household, paying particular attention to some of the earlier contributions, and using them to place the current state of the theory in perspective. One of its aims is to suggest that the literature’s neglect of Samuelson’s proposal, that households can be modelled as if they maximised a form of social welfare function, was a mistake. However, the idea following directly from the Nash bargaining models, that the household’s preference ordering over the utility profiles of its members depends on exogenous variables, in particular wage rates and non-wage incomes, is an important one. Combined with Samuelson’s proposal, it can be made the basis for a general approach to modelling household decision taking, flexible enough to encompass non-cooperative behaviour and Pareto inefficiencies arising out of the inevitable incompleteness and unenforceability of domestic agreements. We also point out the importance of household production and some of the implications of its neglect in modelling households. Above all, the aim is to provide a deeper understanding of the current theoretical literature on household economics by means of a survey of its history.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家庭模式:一个历史的视角
本文对家庭理论模型的文献进行了综述,特别关注了一些早期的贡献,并利用它们来透视理论的现状。其目的之一是表明,文献对萨缪尔森建议的忽视是一个错误,该建议认为,家庭可以被建模为最大化某种形式的社会福利功能。然而,直接从纳什议价模型中得出的观点是,家庭对其成员效用的偏好排序取决于外生变量,特别是工资率和非工资收入,这是一个重要的观点。与萨缪尔森的建议相结合,它可以成为家庭决策建模的一般方法的基础,这种方法足够灵活,可以涵盖非合作行为和帕累托低效,这些低效是由国内协议的不可避免的不完整性和不可执行性引起的。我们还指出了家庭生产的重要性,以及在家庭建模中忽视家庭生产的一些影响。最重要的是,其目的是通过对家庭经济学历史的调查,对当前的家庭经济学理论文献提供更深入的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
TPP – Australian Section-by-Section Analysis of the Enforcement Provisions Uneasy or Accommodating Bedfellows? Common Law and Statute in Employment Regulation Equality Unmodified Wearing Thin: Restrictions on Islamic Headscarves and Other Religious Symbols Defending 'Terrorism': Justifications and Excuses for Terrorism in International Criminal Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1