In this article, we consider the mainsprings of John Nevile’s many contributions to economics. John has repeatedly argued that because ‘economic actions, institutions and policies affect people’, they have an ethical dimension (Hawtrey and Nevile, 1986: 1), and he has stressed the importance of understanding the value judgements on which economics rests. His policy suggestions are aimed at improving social justice and the well-being of the most vulnerable. Apart from his deep knowledge of economic theory, his Christian faith provides an important foundation for his analysis, particularly of policy.

We measure how taking into account air quality affects relative welfare levels and welfare convergence across countries. We use the equivalent variation framework by Jones and Klenow [(2016) American Economic Review 106(9), 2426–2457.] which takes into account consumption, life expectancy, inequality, and leisure and extend it with respect to environmental quality in form of air pollution. Our results show that omitting environmental aspects from welfare accounting might lead to both a substantial over- or understatement of actual relative welfare and welfare developments for different (groups of) countries.

This paper compares the effects of pro- and countercyclical government spending on income inequality and welfare in a small open economy. We examine the consequences of alternative government spending rules following shocks to productivity, domestic interest rates, terms of trade, and export demand. The simulated results show that welfare and income inequality indices can move in opposite directions for government spending rules, with countercyclical spending improving welfare and procyclical spending improving income equality.

The inequality of nutrition and obesity re-focuses concern on who in society is consuming the worst diet. Identification of individuals with the worst of dietary habits permits for targeting interventions to assuage obesity among the population segment where it is most prevalent. We argue that the use of fiscal interventions does not appropriately take into account the economic, social and health circumstances of the intended beneficiaries of the policy. This paper reviews the influence of socio-demographic factors on nutrition and health status and considers the impacts of nutrition policy across the population drawing on methodologies from both public health and welfare economics. The effects of a fat tax on diet are found to be small and while other studies show that fat taxes saves lives, we show that average levels of disease risk do not change much: those consuming particularly bad diets continue to do so. Our results also suggest that the regressivity of the policy increases as the tax becomes focused on products with high saturated fat contents. A fiscally neutral policy that combines the fat tax with a subsidy on fruit and vegetables is actually more regressive because consumption of these foods tends to be concentrated in socially undeserving households. We argue that when inequality is of concern, population-based measures must reflect this and approaches that target vulnerable populations which have a shared propensity to adopt unhealthy behaviours are appropriate.