Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:19:51.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Welfare Effects of Quantity Changes in Demand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Kuo S. Huang
Kuo S. Huang*
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Information about consumer welfare effects associated with quantity changes in demand is important for agricultural and food policy decision-makers because many policy options are directly related to controlling supplies as a means to stabilize or raise commodity prices and farmers' income. A new method is developed to measure the consumer welfare effects by using the estimates of an inverse demand system and a modified quantity-adjusted Malmquist index to represent the efficiency in quantity metric welfare. The methodology is validated by applying it to a U.S. inverse food demand system consisting of 13 food groups and a nonfood sector.

Keywords

consumer welfareinverse demand systemMalmquist quantity indexD12
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 217 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2013

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

Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Department of Commerce. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) by Major Type of Product, 2009. Internet site: www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/selectTable.asp?Selected=n#52/(Accessed March 15, 2009).Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), Food Items, 2009. Internet site: www.bls.gov/data/home.htm (Accessed March 15, 2009).Google Scholar
Chambers, R.G., and Fare, R.. “Translation Homotheticity.” Economic Theory 11(1998):629–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A. “The Distance Function in Consumer Behaviour with Application to Index Numbers and Optimal Taxation.” The Review of Economic Studies 46(1979):391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devadoss, S., and Wahl, T.. “Welfare Impacts of Indian Apple Trade Policies.” Applied Economics 36(2004):1289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. Internet site: www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/(Accessed June 15, 2010).Google Scholar
Eales, J.S., and Unnevehr, L.. “The Inverse Almost Ideal Demand System.” European Economic Review 38(1994):101–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Consumption (Per Capita) Data System, 2009. Internet site: www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/(Accessed March 15, 2009).Google Scholar
Fox, K.A.The Analysis of Demand for Farm Products. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1081, 1953.Google Scholar
Freund, C.L., and Wallich, C.I.. “The Welfare Effects of Raising Household Energy Prices in Poland.” The Energy Journal (Cambridge, Mass.) 17(1996):53–77.Google Scholar
Grant, J.H., Lambert, D.M., and Foster, K.. “A Seasonal Inverse Almost Ideal Demand System for North American Fresh Tomatoes.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(2010):215–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J.R.Value and Capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1936.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.R.A Revision of Demand Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Houck, J.P. “The Relationship of Direct Price Flexibilities to Direct Price Elasticities.” Journal of Farm Economics 47(1965):301–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, K.S. “An Inverse Demand System for U.S. Composite Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988):902–909.Google Scholar
Huang, K.S. “Measuring the Effects of U.S. Meat Trade on Consumers' Welfare.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25(1993):217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, K.S., and Huang, S.W.. “Consumer Welfare Effects of Increased Food and Energy Prices.” Applied Economics 44(2012):2527–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.Y. “Inverse Demand Systems and Welfare Measurement in Quantity Space.” Southern Economic Journal 63(1997):663–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luenberger, D.G. “Welfare from a Benefit Viewpoint.” Economic Theory 7(1996):445–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmquist, S. “Index Numbers and Indifference Surfaces.” Tradajos de Estadística 4(1953):209–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, K.R., and Wong, K.K.G.. “The Benefit Function Approach to Modeling Price-dependent Demand System: An Application of Duality Theory.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(2009):1110–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moschini, G., and Vissa, A.. “A Linear Inverse Demand System.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17(1992):294–302.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. “Using Full Duality to Show That Simultaneous Additive Direct and Indirect Utilities Implies Unitary Price Elasticity of Demand.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 33(1965):781–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, M.C., Capps, O. Jr., and Bessler, A.. “Samuelson's Full Duality and the Use of Directed Acyclical Graphs.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 11(2008):167–91.Google Scholar
Tolley, G.S., Thomas, V., and Wong, CH.. Agricultural Price Policies and the Developing Countries. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Waugh, F.V.Demand and Price Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1316, 1964.Google Scholar