General Equilibrium Model L-1/1 Contents Partial
AS
Published · 87 slides · 0 views
1 / 1
Description
General Equilibrium Model L-11 Contents Partial vrs. General equilibrium Walrasian S System GE Paretian system of General Equilibrium Walrasin General Equilibrium Model 1. It defined as state in which all the markets and decisions making
Related Topics
Download this presentation From Below
"General Equilibrium Model L-1/1 Contents Partial" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Share
Embed code
Presentation Transcript
01
General Equilibrium Model L-1/1<br>
02
Contents Partial vrs. General equilibrium
Walrasian S
System GE
Paretian system of General Equilibrium<br>
Walrasian S
System GE
Paretian system of General Equilibrium<br>
03
Walrasin General Equilibrium Model 1. It defined as state in which all the markets and decisions making units are in simultaneous equations.
If each market is cleared at a positive price.
Consumer maximising satisfaction.
Firm maximising profits.
Product market and factor market must be determined simultaneously.
2. GEM simultaneous equation model
Millions of unknown with millions of equations.
Behavioural equations: dd and ss functions
Clearing market mechanism.<br>
If each market is cleared at a positive price.
Consumer maximising satisfaction.
Firm maximising profits.
Product market and factor market must be determined simultaneously.
2. GEM simultaneous equation model
Millions of unknown with millions of equations.
Behavioural equations: dd and ss functions
Clearing market mechanism.<br>
04
GEM: Léon Walras, Léon Walras (French: 16 December 1834 – 5 January 1910) was a French mathematical economist and Georgist.
He formulated the marginal theory of value (independently of William Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger) and pioneered the development of general equilibrium theory.
Contributions Walras's law , General equilibrium.
In 1874 and 1877 Walras published Éléments d'économie politique pure (1899, 4th ed.; 1926, éd. définitive),
Inn English, Elements of Pure Economics (1954), translated by William Jaffé.
That work that led him to be considered the father of the general equilibrium theory.
Walras's law implies that the sum of the values of excess demands across all markets must equal zero, whether or not the economy is in a general equilibrium.
This implies that if positive excess demand exists in one market, negative excess demand must exist in some other market. Thus, if all markets but one are in equilibrium, then that last market must also be in equilibrium.<br>
He formulated the marginal theory of value (independently of William Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger) and pioneered the development of general equilibrium theory.
Contributions Walras's law , General equilibrium.
In 1874 and 1877 Walras published Éléments d'économie politique pure (1899, 4th ed.; 1926, éd. définitive),
Inn English, Elements of Pure Economics (1954), translated by William Jaffé.
That work that led him to be considered the father of the general equilibrium theory.
Walras's law implies that the sum of the values of excess demands across all markets must equal zero, whether or not the economy is in a general equilibrium.
This implies that if positive excess demand exists in one market, negative excess demand must exist in some other market. Thus, if all markets but one are in equilibrium, then that last market must also be in equilibrium.<br>
05
GEN: Leon Walras 1.All the prices and quantities in all markets determined simultaneously.
2.It is presented by a set equations.
3.Consumers have double role: he buys commodities and sells factors of productions to firms.
Dd for commodities means quantities of commodities it produces.
Ss of factor inputs means dd for factor inputs.
Simultaneity means inter dependency.
Millions of SEM with unknowns.
4. Three characteristics.
Many markets=Many commodities=many factors of productions.
Ss function=dd functions=clearing the market.
Commodity market=dd functions= no. Of conumers.
SS function=no of firms.
No of equation= no.unknowns.<br>
2.It is presented by a set equations.
3.Consumers have double role: he buys commodities and sells factors of productions to firms.
Dd for commodities means quantities of commodities it produces.
Ss of factor inputs means dd for factor inputs.
Simultaneity means inter dependency.
Millions of SEM with unknowns.
4. Three characteristics.
Many markets=Many commodities=many factors of productions.
Ss function=dd functions=clearing the market.
Commodity market=dd functions= no. Of conumers.
SS function=no of firms.
No of equation= no.unknowns.<br>
06
Economic efficiency: Pareto Optimality Velfredo Pareto (1848-1923): rejected the classical view of social welfare
Cardinal utility and additive nature
Interpersonal comparison of utility
Pareto Criterion
Improvement
Optimality/efficiency
Pareto improvement is a position from which it is possible to make someone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Pareto optimality is a position from which it is impossible to make anyone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Government policy change applies in case of PO.<br>
Cardinal utility and additive nature
Interpersonal comparison of utility
Pareto Criterion
Improvement
Optimality/efficiency
Pareto improvement is a position from which it is possible to make someone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Pareto optimality is a position from which it is impossible to make anyone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Government policy change applies in case of PO.<br>
07
Assumption of Pareto Optimality Each individual has his own ordinal utility function and poses a definite amount of each product and factor.
Production function of every firm and state of technology is given and remains constant
Goods are perfectly divisible.
A producer tries to produce a given output with the least cost combination of factors
Each individual wants to maximize his satisfaction.
Every individual purchase some quantity of all goods.
All factors of production are perfectly mobile.<br>
Production function of every firm and state of technology is given and remains constant
Goods are perfectly divisible.
A producer tries to produce a given output with the least cost combination of factors
Each individual wants to maximize his satisfaction.
Every individual purchase some quantity of all goods.
All factors of production are perfectly mobile.<br>
08
Pareto Efficiency Conditions Exchange Efficiency
Production Efficiency
Product Mix Efficiency<br>
Production Efficiency
Product Mix Efficiency<br>
09
Exchange Efficiency Exchange efficiency means the distribution of a given output of goods between individuals in a society should be such that it should not be possible to make someone better off without making anyone else worse off.
The marginal condition for a Pareto Optimal or Efficient distribution of commodities among consumers requires that the MRS between two goods must be same for every individual who consumes them both.
MRS xy of A = MRS xy of B<br>
The marginal condition for a Pareto Optimal or Efficient distribution of commodities among consumers requires that the MRS between two goods must be same for every individual who consumes them both.
MRS xy of A = MRS xy of B<br>
10
Explanation of the diagram Draw a Contract curve
MRS between the two goods for individuals A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRS.
At point K, MRS xy of A is not equal to MRS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
MRS between the two goods for individuals A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRS.
At point K, MRS xy of A is not equal to MRS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
11
Production Efficiency Pareto efficiency in production is possible by reallocating the resources is such a way that resources to produce more of some goods without producing less of some other goods.
Use of Resources by a firm for production of a good or goods is efficient when it produces any given output at the minimum possible cost or a given cost outlays.
The marginal condition for a Pareto optimal allocation of factors (inputs) requires that the MRTS between any pair of factors must be equal the same for any two firms producing any two products and using both the factors to produce the products.
MRTS lk of A = MRS lk of B<br>
Use of Resources by a firm for production of a good or goods is efficient when it produces any given output at the minimum possible cost or a given cost outlays.
The marginal condition for a Pareto optimal allocation of factors (inputs) requires that the MRTS between any pair of factors must be equal the same for any two firms producing any two products and using both the factors to produce the products.
MRTS lk of A = MRS lk of B<br>
12
Explanation of the diagram Draw a Contract curve
MRTS for ne factors for another is the amount of one factors necessary to compensate the loss of the marginal unit of the anther so that the level of output remains the same.
MRTS between the two goods for firm A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRTS.
At point K, MRTS xy of A is not equal to MRTS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
MRTS for ne factors for another is the amount of one factors necessary to compensate the loss of the marginal unit of the anther so that the level of output remains the same.
MRTS between the two goods for firm A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRTS.
At point K, MRTS xy of A is not equal to MRTS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
13
Product Mix efficiency The product mix efficiency means that allocation of resources among the production of various goods and services is in accordance with the preferences of the people.
The marginal conditions for a Pareto Optimal or efficient composition of output requires that the MRPT (Marginal Rate of product transformation) between any two commodities be equal to the MRS between the same two goods.
MRPTxy = MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B
MRPT says the rate at which a good can be transformed into another.
MRS xy = rate at which consumer are willing to exchange a good for another.<br>
The marginal conditions for a Pareto Optimal or efficient composition of output requires that the MRPT (Marginal Rate of product transformation) between any two commodities be equal to the MRS between the same two goods.
MRPTxy = MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B
MRPT says the rate at which a good can be transformed into another.
MRS xy = rate at which consumer are willing to exchange a good for another.<br>
14
Explanation of the diagram AB is a community transformation curve. It represents an amount of X can be produced for any amount of Y with a fixed supply of available resources.
MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B= MRPT at point R.
R represents optimum combination of production in which commodities X and Y are being produced and consumed in OM and ON quantities.
At point S, consumer is at lower IC.<br>
MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B= MRPT at point R.
R represents optimum combination of production in which commodities X and Y are being produced and consumed in OM and ON quantities.
At point S, consumer is at lower IC.<br>
15
Product Mix with Edgeworth Box TT’ is society product transformation curve.
At L, ox1 of X and oy1 of Y is produced.
Thus production at L and consumption at S can not be Pareto Optimum.
In diagram 2, at point Q of TT’, greater of Y and smaller of X is produced.<br>
At L, ox1 of X and oy1 of Y is produced.
Thus production at L and consumption at S can not be Pareto Optimum.
In diagram 2, at point Q of TT’, greater of Y and smaller of X is produced.<br>
16
Critical evaluation of PC and PO It is not completely free from value judgment.
PC can not be applied to judge the social desirability of those policies proposals which benefit some and harm others. Whenever, there is conflict of preferences of two individuals with respect to two alternatives, the criteria fails to rank those two alternatives no matter what the preferences of the rest of the individuals in the society might be. P.K. Paitnaik.
PC leaves a considerable amount of indeterminacy in the welfare analysis since every point in CC is pareto optimal.
PC accepts the prevailing income distribution and no attempt is made to find out an optimum distribution of income.<br>
PC can not be applied to judge the social desirability of those policies proposals which benefit some and harm others. Whenever, there is conflict of preferences of two individuals with respect to two alternatives, the criteria fails to rank those two alternatives no matter what the preferences of the rest of the individuals in the society might be. P.K. Paitnaik.
PC leaves a considerable amount of indeterminacy in the welfare analysis since every point in CC is pareto optimal.
PC accepts the prevailing income distribution and no attempt is made to find out an optimum distribution of income.<br>
17
A.K. Sen Critique of PO A State can be PO with some people in extreme misery and others rolling in luxury, so long as the miserable cannot be made better off without cutting into the luxury of the rich. A.K. Sen
He criticized the utility based PO. Utility is interpreted in happiness and desire-fulfillment. Utility does not always reflect well being.
Well being is ultimately a matter of valuation and while happiness and fulfillment of desire may well be valuable for the person’s well being, they cannot-on their own way or even together- adequately reflect the value of well being.
Welfare or well being is also affected by political and environmental factors.
A reorganization that gives everyone more income and leisure might not improve the welfare of the community if at the same time it limits individual freedom or requires the abandonment of cherished culture and traditions.<br>
He criticized the utility based PO. Utility is interpreted in happiness and desire-fulfillment. Utility does not always reflect well being.
Well being is ultimately a matter of valuation and while happiness and fulfillment of desire may well be valuable for the person’s well being, they cannot-on their own way or even together- adequately reflect the value of well being.
Welfare or well being is also affected by political and environmental factors.
A reorganization that gives everyone more income and leisure might not improve the welfare of the community if at the same time it limits individual freedom or requires the abandonment of cherished culture and traditions.<br>
18
Economic efficiency: Pareto Optimality Velfredo Pareto (1848-1923): rejected the classical view of social welfare
Cardinal utility and additive nature
Interpersonal comparison of utility
Pareto Criterion
Improvement
Optimality/efficiency
Pareto improvement is a position from which it is possible to make someone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Pareto optimality is a position from which it is impossible to make anyone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Government policy change applies in case of PO.<br>
Cardinal utility and additive nature
Interpersonal comparison of utility
Pareto Criterion
Improvement
Optimality/efficiency
Pareto improvement is a position from which it is possible to make someone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Pareto optimality is a position from which it is impossible to make anyone better off without making someone worse off by any re-allocation of resources and outputs.
Government policy change applies in case of PO.<br>
19
Assumption of Pareto Optimality Each individual has his own ordinal utility function and poses a definite amount of each product and factor.
Production function of every firm and state of technology is given and remains constant
Goods are perfectly divisible.
A producer tries to produce a given output with the least cost combination of factors
Each individual wants to maximize his satisfaction.
Every individual purchase some quantity of all goods.
All factors of production are perfectly mobile.<br>
Production function of every firm and state of technology is given and remains constant
Goods are perfectly divisible.
A producer tries to produce a given output with the least cost combination of factors
Each individual wants to maximize his satisfaction.
Every individual purchase some quantity of all goods.
All factors of production are perfectly mobile.<br>
20
Pareto Efficiency Conditions Exchange Efficiency
Production Efficiency
Product Mix Efficiency<br>
Production Efficiency
Product Mix Efficiency<br>
21
Exchange Efficiency Exchange efficiency means the distribution of a given output of goods between individuals in a society should be such that it should not be possible to make someone better off without making anyone else worse off.
The marginal condition for a Pareto Optimal or Efficient distribution of commodities among consumers requires that the MRS between two goods must be same for every individual who consumes them both.
MRS xy of A = MRS xy of B<br>
The marginal condition for a Pareto Optimal or Efficient distribution of commodities among consumers requires that the MRS between two goods must be same for every individual who consumes them both.
MRS xy of A = MRS xy of B<br>
22
Explanation of the diagram Draw a Contract curve
MRS between the two goods for individuals A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRS.
At point K, MRS xy of A is not equal to MRS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
MRS between the two goods for individuals A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRS.
At point K, MRS xy of A is not equal to MRS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
23
Production Efficiency Pareto efficiency in production is possible by reallocating the resources is such a way that resources to produce more of some goods without producing less of some other goods.
Use of Resources by a firm for production of a good or goods is efficient when it produces any given output at the minimum possible cost or a given cost outlays.
The marginal condition for a Pareto optimal allocation of factors (inputs) requires that the MRTS between any pair of factors must be equal the same for any two firms producing any two products and using both the factors to produce the products.
MRTS lk of A = MRS lk of B<br>
Use of Resources by a firm for production of a good or goods is efficient when it produces any given output at the minimum possible cost or a given cost outlays.
The marginal condition for a Pareto optimal allocation of factors (inputs) requires that the MRTS between any pair of factors must be equal the same for any two firms producing any two products and using both the factors to produce the products.
MRTS lk of A = MRS lk of B<br>
24
Explanation of the diagram Draw a Contract curve
MRTS for ne factors for another is the amount of one factors necessary to compensate the loss of the marginal unit of the anther so that the level of output remains the same.
MRTS between the two goods for firm A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRTS.
At point K, MRTS xy of A is not equal to MRTS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
MRTS for ne factors for another is the amount of one factors necessary to compensate the loss of the marginal unit of the anther so that the level of output remains the same.
MRTS between the two goods for firm A and B are equal on the various points of the Contract curve CC’.
Any point outside the CC does not represent the equality of MRTS.
At point K, MRTS xy of A is not equal to MRTS xy of B.
So movement from K to QS segment of any point on CC’ increase the social welfare.<br>
25
Product Mix efficiency The product mix efficiency means that allocation of resources among the production of various goods and services is in accordance with the preferences of the people.
The marginal conditions for a Pareto Optimal or efficient composition of output requires that the MRPT (Marginal Rate of product transformation) between any two commodities be equal to the MRS between the same two goods.
MRPTxy = MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B
MRPT says the rate at which a good can be transformed into another.
MRS xy = rate at which consumer are willing to exchange a good for another.<br>
The marginal conditions for a Pareto Optimal or efficient composition of output requires that the MRPT (Marginal Rate of product transformation) between any two commodities be equal to the MRS between the same two goods.
MRPTxy = MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B
MRPT says the rate at which a good can be transformed into another.
MRS xy = rate at which consumer are willing to exchange a good for another.<br>
26
Explanation of the diagram AB is a community transformation curve. It represents an amount of X can be produced for any amount of Y with a fixed supply of available resources.
MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B= MRPT at point R.
R represents optimum combination of production in which commodities X and Y are being produced and consumed in OM and ON quantities.
At point S, consumer is at lower IC.<br>
MRSxy of A = MRSxy of B= MRPT at point R.
R represents optimum combination of production in which commodities X and Y are being produced and consumed in OM and ON quantities.
At point S, consumer is at lower IC.<br>
27
Product Mix with Edgeworth Box TT’ is society product transformation curve.
At L, ox1 of X and oy1 of Y is produced.
Thus production at L and consumption at S can not be Pareto Optimum.
In diagram 2, at point Q of TT’, greater of Y and smaller of X is produced.<br>
At L, ox1 of X and oy1 of Y is produced.
Thus production at L and consumption at S can not be Pareto Optimum.
In diagram 2, at point Q of TT’, greater of Y and smaller of X is produced.<br>
28
Critical evaluation of PC and PO It is not completely free from value judgment.
PC can not be applied to judge the social desirability of those policies proposals which benefit some and harm others. Whenever, there is conflict of preferences of two individuals with respect to two alternatives, the criteria fails to rank those two alternatives no matter what the preferences of the rest of the individuals in the society might be. P.K. Paitnaik.
PC leaves a considerable amount of indeterminacy in the welfare analysis since every point in CC is pareto optimal.
PC accepts the prevailing income distribution and no attempt is made to find out an optimum distribution of income.<br>
PC can not be applied to judge the social desirability of those policies proposals which benefit some and harm others. Whenever, there is conflict of preferences of two individuals with respect to two alternatives, the criteria fails to rank those two alternatives no matter what the preferences of the rest of the individuals in the society might be. P.K. Paitnaik.
PC leaves a considerable amount of indeterminacy in the welfare analysis since every point in CC is pareto optimal.
PC accepts the prevailing income distribution and no attempt is made to find out an optimum distribution of income.<br>
29
A.K. Sen Critique of PO A State can be PO with some people in extreme misery and others rolling in luxury, so long as the miserable cannot be made better off without cutting into the luxury of the rich. A.K. Sen
He criticized the utility based PO. Utility is interpreted in happiness and desire-fulfillment. Utility does not always reflect well being.
Well being is ultimately a matter of valuation and while happiness and fulfillment of desire may well be valuable for the person’s well being, they cannot-on their own way or even together- adequately reflect the value of well being.
Welfare or well being is also affected by political and environmental factors.
A reorganization that gives everyone more income and leisure might not improve the welfare of the community if at the same time it limits individual freedom or requires the abandonment of cherished culture and traditions.<br>
He criticized the utility based PO. Utility is interpreted in happiness and desire-fulfillment. Utility does not always reflect well being.
Well being is ultimately a matter of valuation and while happiness and fulfillment of desire may well be valuable for the person’s well being, they cannot-on their own way or even together- adequately reflect the value of well being.
Welfare or well being is also affected by political and environmental factors.
A reorganization that gives everyone more income and leisure might not improve the welfare of the community if at the same time it limits individual freedom or requires the abandonment of cherished culture and traditions.<br>
30
First Theorem of Welfare Economics Pareto optimality and allocation of resources
One can make better off without making any one else worse off, an inefficient point.
From in-efficienct point through improvement process, one can make Pareto efficient.
First fundamental theorem of welfare economics
Maximization of social welfare or economic efficiency in general equilibrium frame.
It reflect general competitive equilibrium is Pareto optimal<br>
One can make better off without making any one else worse off, an inefficient point.
From in-efficienct point through improvement process, one can make Pareto efficient.
First fundamental theorem of welfare economics
Maximization of social welfare or economic efficiency in general equilibrium frame.
It reflect general competitive equilibrium is Pareto optimal<br>
31
First Theorem PC and Optimal Distribution of Goods or Exchange Efficiency
1.MRS xy of A = Px/Py
2.MRS xy of B =Px/Py
3. MRS xy of A = MRS xy of B
PC and Optimal Distribution of Factors or Production Efficiency
MRTS lk of X =w/r
MRTS lk of Y = w/r
MRTS lk of X =MRTS lk of Y<br>
1.MRS xy of A = Px/Py
2.MRS xy of B =Px/Py
3. MRS xy of A = MRS xy of B
PC and Optimal Distribution of Factors or Production Efficiency
MRTS lk of X =w/r
MRTS lk of Y = w/r
MRTS lk of X =MRTS lk of Y<br>
32
PC and Optimum Directions of Production General economic Efficiency
This condition states that MRS between any two commodities for any consumer should be same as the MR of transformation (MRT) for the community between these two commodities.
MC x/ MC y = Px/ Py
MRT xy = MC x/ MC y = Px/ Py
MRS xy = Px/Py
Mrs xy =MRT xy<br>
This condition states that MRS between any two commodities for any consumer should be same as the MR of transformation (MRT) for the community between these two commodities.
MC x/ MC y = Px/ Py
MRT xy = MC x/ MC y = Px/ Py
MRS xy = Px/Py
Mrs xy =MRT xy<br>
33
Criticism This is also called invisible hand theorem.
General competitive equilibrium exists.
Second order condition for equilibrium must fulfill.
Externality in consumption and production do not exist.
Pareto optimality and social justice<br>
General competitive equilibrium exists.
Second order condition for equilibrium must fulfill.
Externality in consumption and production do not exist.
Pareto optimality and social justice<br>
34
Theory of Consumer Surplus First formulated by Dupuit in 1884 to social benefits of public goods.
It is further refined by and popularized by “Principles of Economics” in 1890.
It is basis for welfare economics.
Marshall’s concept of CS is cardinal and interpersonal comparison of Utility.
CS is simple difference between the price that one is willing to pay minus one actually pay for it for particular product.
Greater the amount of money he is willing to pay, the greater the utility he obtained from it.
CS = ∑ MU – P X No. of unit of Commodity.<br>
It is further refined by and popularized by “Principles of Economics” in 1890.
It is basis for welfare economics.
Marshall’s concept of CS is cardinal and interpersonal comparison of Utility.
CS is simple difference between the price that one is willing to pay minus one actually pay for it for particular product.
Greater the amount of money he is willing to pay, the greater the utility he obtained from it.
CS = ∑ MU – P X No. of unit of Commodity.<br>
35
Marshall’s CS Example: Consumption of Water.
Two aspects are important to measure.
Total utility in terms of money
Total market value
Assumptions:
Cardinal Measurement of Utility.
Marginal Utility of Money remain constant.
Different units of goods give different amount of satisfaction to the consumer.<br>
Two aspects are important to measure.
Total utility in terms of money
Total market value
Assumptions:
Cardinal Measurement of Utility.
Marginal Utility of Money remain constant.
Different units of goods give different amount of satisfaction to the consumer.<br>
36
Example of CS<br>
37
CS under various situation (Marshallian Form of CS)
CS Under DD Curve
CS and Changes in price
CS through Indifference curve
Hicks and Allen is a ordinal concept.
MU of money does not remain constant with the rise and fall in real income.<br>
CS Under DD Curve
CS and Changes in price
CS through Indifference curve
Hicks and Allen is a ordinal concept.
MU of money does not remain constant with the rise and fall in real income.<br>
38
Hicksian Four Concept of CS 1. Price Compensating Variation
2. Price Equivalent Variation
3. Quantity Compensating Variation
4. Quantity Equivalent Variation
Price Compensating Variation
PCV is defined by Hicks “Maximum amount of money the consumer will be willing pay for the privilege of buying a commodity at a lower price so that he obtains the initial level of welfare. That is the level of welfare he obtained before the fall in price.<br>
2. Price Equivalent Variation
3. Quantity Compensating Variation
4. Quantity Equivalent Variation
Price Compensating Variation
PCV is defined by Hicks “Maximum amount of money the consumer will be willing pay for the privilege of buying a commodity at a lower price so that he obtains the initial level of welfare. That is the level of welfare he obtained before the fall in price.<br>
39
2. Price Equivalent Variation
PEV is defined by Hicks as the minimum sum of money, the consumer will accept to receive for forgoing the opportunity of buying at a lower price, so that he obtains the subsequent level of welfare, which he reaches with lower price.
3. Quantity Equivalent Variation
QCV is defined by Hicks “As the maximum amount of money, a consumer will be willing to pay for the priviledge of buying a good at a lower price, if along with this privilege he is constrained to buy the quantity of the good, which he would buy at a lower price, in the absence of any compensating payment”.<br>
PEV is defined by Hicks as the minimum sum of money, the consumer will accept to receive for forgoing the opportunity of buying at a lower price, so that he obtains the subsequent level of welfare, which he reaches with lower price.
3. Quantity Equivalent Variation
QCV is defined by Hicks “As the maximum amount of money, a consumer will be willing to pay for the priviledge of buying a good at a lower price, if along with this privilege he is constrained to buy the quantity of the good, which he would buy at a lower price, in the absence of any compensating payment”.<br>
40
4. Quantity Equivalent Variation
QEV is defined by Hicks as “the minimum sum of money that the consumer will accept for forgoing the opportunity of buying the commodity at the lower price, provided he is constrained to buy the quantity of X, which he actually buys at the old higher price”.
If he is constrained to buy OA amount of X, he will accept QT amount of money for giving up the opportunity of buying the commodity at the lower price. This is because combination T gives same satisfaction as combination R at which point the consumer reaches with lower price of X.<br>
QEV is defined by Hicks as “the minimum sum of money that the consumer will accept for forgoing the opportunity of buying the commodity at the lower price, provided he is constrained to buy the quantity of X, which he actually buys at the old higher price”.
If he is constrained to buy OA amount of X, he will accept QT amount of money for giving up the opportunity of buying the commodity at the lower price. This is because combination T gives same satisfaction as combination R at which point the consumer reaches with lower price of X.<br>
41
Criticism of CS CS is quite hypothetical, imaginary and illustrative.
Sum total of money actually spent by him on the goods cannot be greater than his total money income.
2. It is based on invalid assumptions that different units of the goods give different amount of satisfaction to the consumer.
3. It ignores the interdependence between the goods that is the relations of substitute and complementary goods.
4. CS is hypothetical and imaginary:
Prof. Nickolson says that it is difficult to say how much price a consumer would be willing to pay for a good rather than go without it.
J.R. Hicks says the best way to look at the CS is to regard it as a means of expressing it in terms of money income gain which accrues to the consumers as a result of fall in price.
5. It is based on questionable assumption of cardinal measurability of utility and constancy of the marginal utility of money.<br>
Sum total of money actually spent by him on the goods cannot be greater than his total money income.
2. It is based on invalid assumptions that different units of the goods give different amount of satisfaction to the consumer.
3. It ignores the interdependence between the goods that is the relations of substitute and complementary goods.
4. CS is hypothetical and imaginary:
Prof. Nickolson says that it is difficult to say how much price a consumer would be willing to pay for a good rather than go without it.
J.R. Hicks says the best way to look at the CS is to regard it as a means of expressing it in terms of money income gain which accrues to the consumers as a result of fall in price.
5. It is based on questionable assumption of cardinal measurability of utility and constancy of the marginal utility of money.<br>
42
Conclusion Formulation of economic theory and policy
Utility is more than price paid – Adam Smith, Value in Use and Value in Exchange
Example: salt, match box, news paper etc.
Amenities and Recreational Facilities:
Prof. Samuelson says “How lucky the citizen of modern efficient communities really are?”
Marshallian CS was meant for formulating suitable fiscal policy, which maximizes the welfare of the people.
Indirect Tax and Subsidies:
CS and CBA:<br>
Utility is more than price paid – Adam Smith, Value in Use and Value in Exchange
Example: salt, match box, news paper etc.
Amenities and Recreational Facilities:
Prof. Samuelson says “How lucky the citizen of modern efficient communities really are?”
Marshallian CS was meant for formulating suitable fiscal policy, which maximizes the welfare of the people.
Indirect Tax and Subsidies:
CS and CBA:<br>
43
Application of CS Three Major Areas
The Water –Diamond Paradox of Value Theory
The effects of taxes and subsidies on Peoples’ welfare
CBA of public projects
The Water –Diamond Paradox of Value Theory
Use value vrs market value
Marginal valuation of a commodity reflects how much amount of money consumer is prepared to pay for a commodity.
Market price of a commodity is determined not by its total use value but by its marginal valuation of marginal benefit which is turns depends upon the actually availability of quantity.
Total valuation or satisfaction derived from water consumed is much greater compared with diamond but its marginal valuation is low due to its abundant supply.<br>
The Water –Diamond Paradox of Value Theory
The effects of taxes and subsidies on Peoples’ welfare
CBA of public projects
The Water –Diamond Paradox of Value Theory
Use value vrs market value
Marginal valuation of a commodity reflects how much amount of money consumer is prepared to pay for a commodity.
Market price of a commodity is determined not by its total use value but by its marginal valuation of marginal benefit which is turns depends upon the actually availability of quantity.
Total valuation or satisfaction derived from water consumed is much greater compared with diamond but its marginal valuation is low due to its abundant supply.<br>
44
The effects of taxes and subsidies Indirect tax and constant cost Industry
Demand and SS of car
Explain the loss of welfare due to tax
Two components
1. Revenue collect by the govt.
2. Loss of welfare or excess of burden of sales taxation or dead weight loss
Gain from subsidy
Give the example of foodgrains
Two components
Total expenditure burn by govt.
Net gain in welfare<br>
Demand and SS of car
Explain the loss of welfare due to tax
Two components
1. Revenue collect by the govt.
2. Loss of welfare or excess of burden of sales taxation or dead weight loss
Gain from subsidy
Give the example of foodgrains
Two components
Total expenditure burn by govt.
Net gain in welfare<br>
45
CBA of Public Projects CBA means not only analysis of costs and benefits but also real costs and benefits in terms of satisfaction and resources.
It also looks social point of view
Give one example of fly over
No. of journey per month and cost per journey
Two components
Cost saving component
2. increase in consumer surplus<br>
It also looks social point of view
Give one example of fly over
No. of journey per month and cost per journey
Two components
Cost saving component
2. increase in consumer surplus<br>
46
Arrow theory of Social Choice L-1<br>
47
K.J Arrow as a Economist Kenneth Joseph "Ken" Arrow (August 23, 1921 – February 21, 2017) was an American economist, writer, and political theorist.
He was the joint winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with John Hicks in 1972. To date, he is the youngest person to have received this award, at 51.
His most significant works are his contributions to social choice theory, notably "Arrow's impossibility theorem", and his work on general equilibrium analysis.
He has also provided foundational work in many other areas of economics, including endogenous growth theory and the economics of information.<br>
He was the joint winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with John Hicks in 1972. To date, he is the youngest person to have received this award, at 51.
His most significant works are his contributions to social choice theory, notably "Arrow's impossibility theorem", and his work on general equilibrium analysis.
He has also provided foundational work in many other areas of economics, including endogenous growth theory and the economics of information.<br>
48
Arrow’s Social Choice Social Choice and Individual Values
Arrow’s main contention that “It is difficulty to set up reasonable democratic procedures for the aggregation of individual preferences into a social preferences for making a social choice”.
BS SWF – f (goods and services consumed him not by others)
SWF based on all individuals preference is impossible.<br>
Arrow’s main contention that “It is difficulty to set up reasonable democratic procedures for the aggregation of individual preferences into a social preferences for making a social choice”.
BS SWF – f (goods and services consumed him not by others)
SWF based on all individuals preference is impossible.<br>
49
Arrow SWF Arrow has pointed out that individuals ordering of social states does not depend exclusively upon the commodities consumed but also on the amount of various types of collectives such as municipal services, parks, sanitation, erection of statues of famous men.
Welfare results of collective activity can not be evaluated by an individual solely on the basis of his consumption.
Individual ordering of social states will depend on his own consumption as well as on the consumption of others in the society.<br>
Welfare results of collective activity can not be evaluated by an individual solely on the basis of his consumption.
Individual ordering of social states will depend on his own consumption as well as on the consumption of others in the society.<br>
50
Arrow conditions of Social Choice Value Judgments of a super man or dictator about social welfare may not be valid due to various types of biases in human mind.
Arrow was the first welfare economist, who attempted to lay down reasonable necessary condition for achieving the social ordering.
Dictator can make a choice through custom and tradition, spiritual on religious head in traditional society or by individuals comprising a society through voting.
Dictatonial rule on religious and traditional society, social choice is comparutivelu each.
Social choice in a democratic society based on individual ordering is diffcuilti.<br>
Arrow was the first welfare economist, who attempted to lay down reasonable necessary condition for achieving the social ordering.
Dictator can make a choice through custom and tradition, spiritual on religious head in traditional society or by individuals comprising a society through voting.
Dictatonial rule on religious and traditional society, social choice is comparutivelu each.
Social choice in a democratic society based on individual ordering is diffcuilti.<br>
51
Conditions Transitivity or Consistency – alternatives must be related Consistency – if any pair of alternatives A and B, either A is Preferred to B, B is preferred to A, on Indifferent between A.
Responsiveness to Individual Preference
Social Ranking must respond positively to the individual ranking.
Social choice changes in the same direction of individual preference.
The condition of Non- imposition
Social choices must not be imposed independently on individual preference
No body prefers B to A,
An Some body A to B
Society prefers B to A<br>
Responsiveness to Individual Preference
Social Ranking must respond positively to the individual ranking.
Social choice changes in the same direction of individual preference.
The condition of Non- imposition
Social choices must not be imposed independently on individual preference
No body prefers B to A,
An Some body A to B
Society prefers B to A<br>
52
Conditions….. Condition of Non Dictatorship.
Social Choice must not be dictated by any one individual in the community
Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives.
Social ranking of any two alternatives is determined exclusively by individual ranking of these two alternatives above<br>
Social Choice must not be dictated by any one individual in the community
Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives.
Social ranking of any two alternatives is determined exclusively by individual ranking of these two alternatives above<br>
53
Impossibility Theorem X Y Z
A 3 2 1 (least Preference)
B 1 3 2 (next Preference)
C 2 1 3 (Most Preference)<br>
A 3 2 1 (least Preference)
B 1 3 2 (next Preference)
C 2 1 3 (Most Preference)<br>
54
Sen Criticism on Arrow’s theorem: A limited class of Information
The poorest has no cake left to he taken away.
If we execute the possibility of interpersonal comparisons of Utility only method of passing from individual tastes to social preference, which shall be satisfactory and which will be defined for a wide range of sets individual ordering are either. It is not possible to pass from the imposed indication.
Individual preferences to the social preference, so as to construct a social welfare function.
Free voting in a democratic process.
Social choice would be made by majority rule.
Social choices can not violate transitivity on consistency.<br>
The poorest has no cake left to he taken away.
If we execute the possibility of interpersonal comparisons of Utility only method of passing from individual tastes to social preference, which shall be satisfactory and which will be defined for a wide range of sets individual ordering are either. It is not possible to pass from the imposed indication.
Individual preferences to the social preference, so as to construct a social welfare function.
Free voting in a democratic process.
Social choice would be made by majority rule.
Social choices can not violate transitivity on consistency.<br>
55
Social Welfare FunctionsB-S Theory L-I
Sanatan Nayak<br>
Sanatan Nayak<br>
56
Classical view Sum of cardinal utilities
Law of diminishing marginal utilities
Equal distribution of income or Marginal Utility of Money is constant
Interpersonal comparison of utilities
Critiques
Cardinal measurement of utilities
Sum of cardinal utilities: This is unethical or equal weight to each person is not correct.<br>
Law of diminishing marginal utilities
Equal distribution of income or Marginal Utility of Money is constant
Interpersonal comparison of utilities
Critiques
Cardinal measurement of utilities
Sum of cardinal utilities: This is unethical or equal weight to each person is not correct.<br>
57
SWF Classical SWF: Bentham, Pigou and Marshall: Cardinal Utility
Maximisation of social welfare is possible for equal distribution of income
Pareto SWF: Marginal conditions
Rawlsian SWF: John Rowl
Welfare criteria can be chosen, departure from perfect equality
Unequal distribution of utilities.
The worst of individual is actually better off than under equality.<br>
Maximisation of social welfare is possible for equal distribution of income
Pareto SWF: Marginal conditions
Rawlsian SWF: John Rowl
Welfare criteria can be chosen, departure from perfect equality
Unequal distribution of utilities.
The worst of individual is actually better off than under equality.<br>
58
SWF-SB A. Bergson (1938): A reformulation of certain aspects of Welfare Economics
BS provided a new approach to SW
Ordinal preferences of individuals
Welfare Approach is individualistic
Interpersonal comparison of utility and value judgment
Welfare economics can not be separated from value judgement<br>
BS provided a new approach to SW
Ordinal preferences of individuals
Welfare Approach is individualistic
Interpersonal comparison of utility and value judgment
Welfare economics can not be separated from value judgement<br>
59
B-S SWF It is an ordinal index of utility
Welfare function: W=w(U1, U2, ………Un)
Ordinal utility index depends on goods and services consumed.
Three proposition:
B-S SWE depends solely on the utility of individual welfare in the society.
Value Judgment can be obtained through democratic process through voting by individual.
Agents of value of Judgment- economists need not himself decide about, the desirable distribution of welfare.
Ordinal Utility is function of own condition of goods & services.<br>
Welfare function: W=w(U1, U2, ………Un)
Ordinal utility index depends on goods and services consumed.
Three proposition:
B-S SWE depends solely on the utility of individual welfare in the society.
Value Judgment can be obtained through democratic process through voting by individual.
Agents of value of Judgment- economists need not himself decide about, the desirable distribution of welfare.
Ordinal Utility is function of own condition of goods & services.<br>
60
B-S SWF cont …. SWF function is attained by common consensus or it may be forced upon the society by a dictator.
Problem of choosing an agent by authority “who can give biased value judgment superman”.
Democratic government on process of democratization of mixing welfare.
Rule of transitivity<br>
Problem of choosing an agent by authority “who can give biased value judgment superman”.
Democratic government on process of democratization of mixing welfare.
Rule of transitivity<br>
61
Representation of BS SWF : A social IC is a locus of various combination of utilities of A & B, which results an equal level of social welfare.
The consideration of fairness and equality are incorporated into the welfare function and are reflected in the sphere of social IC.
BS SWF arrives a solution for maximum social welfare which combines efficiency and equity.
Point of Contrained Bliss: Equity and efficiency.<br>
The consideration of fairness and equality are incorporated into the welfare function and are reflected in the sphere of social IC.
BS SWF arrives a solution for maximum social welfare which combines efficiency and equity.
Point of Contrained Bliss: Equity and efficiency.<br>
62
Summary of B-S Value Judgement and Inter personal comparison of utility.
Distribution of welfare is possible through value judgement.
There is no unique value judgement process but set of value judgement can construct a SWF.
SWF provides unique optimum solution with efficiency and equity, i.e., Constrained Bliss.<br>
Distribution of welfare is possible through value judgement.
There is no unique value judgement process but set of value judgement can construct a SWF.
SWF provides unique optimum solution with efficiency and equity, i.e., Constrained Bliss.<br>
63
Critical evaluation of BS Little, Streeten and Baumol have pointed SWF have limited practical use.
Little- SWF can neither be used in democratic state non in totalitarian state.
Baumol: SWF is have limited practical value, as it does not tell us how to get the value judgements, which it requires for its construction.
J.K.Mehta:- SWF is possible, when superman or authority initiate representative state, or unbiased or selfless.
It might improve the welfare of the community it at the same time it limits individual freedom or requires the abandonment of cherished cultural traditions.<br>
Little- SWF can neither be used in democratic state non in totalitarian state.
Baumol: SWF is have limited practical value, as it does not tell us how to get the value judgements, which it requires for its construction.
J.K.Mehta:- SWF is possible, when superman or authority initiate representative state, or unbiased or selfless.
It might improve the welfare of the community it at the same time it limits individual freedom or requires the abandonment of cherished cultural traditions.<br>
64
Reference A. Bergson (1938), “A Reformulation of Certain aspects of Welfare Economics”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 52, No. 2., pp. 310-334.<br>
65
Compensation Principles Due to economic re-organisation, which makes some people better off and others worse off.
Assumption
The satisfaction of an individual is independent of the others
There is no externality of consumption and production
The test of consumer remains constant.
The problems of production and consumption can be separated from distribution.
Utility can be measured ordinally and interpersonal comparison of utility is not possible.<br>
Assumption
The satisfaction of an individual is independent of the others
There is no externality of consumption and production
The test of consumer remains constant.
The problems of production and consumption can be separated from distribution.
Utility can be measured ordinally and interpersonal comparison of utility is not possible.<br>
66
H-K welfare criterion: Compensation principles K-H Compensation Criteria says:
If certain change occur due to economic reorganization policy change. Some people better off and others worse off. Then that change will increase social welfare if those who gain from the changes could compensate the losers and still be better off than before.
J.R. Hicks Supported the view of compensation Criteria:-This case is improvement then the re-organisation.
DE is the utility possibility curve.
When we more down ward, utility of A Up es and b Down es.
The movement from Q to T, B better off and A worse of .
Utility.
R is the point, where both A remain same and B better off.
Movement from Q to R,
Q to S, Would increases both.
Due to economic change any movement for lower UPC to higher UPC, would make better off the position.<br>
If certain change occur due to economic reorganization policy change. Some people better off and others worse off. Then that change will increase social welfare if those who gain from the changes could compensate the losers and still be better off than before.
J.R. Hicks Supported the view of compensation Criteria:-This case is improvement then the re-organisation.
DE is the utility possibility curve.
When we more down ward, utility of A Up es and b Down es.
The movement from Q to T, B better off and A worse of .
Utility.
R is the point, where both A remain same and B better off.
Movement from Q to R,
Q to S, Would increases both.
Due to economic change any movement for lower UPC to higher UPC, would make better off the position.<br>
67
H-K welfare criterion cont ……. H.K.Criteria says compensation may not be actually paid to judge whether or not social welfare has increased. It is enough to know whether the gainer could compensate the loser for the loss in his welfare and still be better off.
It says change in output and change in distribution.<br>
It says change in output and change in distribution.<br>
68
UPC move outwards What happens to social welfare due to economic policy and UPC moves outward.
Any change in the economy that moves the individual from a position on a lower utility possibility curve to a position on a higher utility possibility curve increases social welfare.<br>
Any change in the economy that moves the individual from a position on a lower utility possibility curve to a position on a higher utility possibility curve increases social welfare.<br>
69
Scitovsky Paradox Important limitation to H-K principles.
If B is an improvement to A by H-K principles, then it is possible, A can be improvement over B on the same criteria.
H-K involve contradictory and inconsistency situation.
JK and GH are two UPC.
C is the original position. Due to policy change, higher UPC and point is at D.
Movement from C to D, satisfy the H-K criteria.
According to Scitovsky, reverse movement from D to C, social welfare also increases.<br>
If B is an improvement to A by H-K principles, then it is possible, A can be improvement over B on the same criteria.
H-K involve contradictory and inconsistency situation.
JK and GH are two UPC.
C is the original position. Due to policy change, higher UPC and point is at D.
Movement from C to D, satisfy the H-K criteria.
According to Scitovsky, reverse movement from D to C, social welfare also increases.<br>
70
Scitovsky double criterion Full fills the requirement of H-K hypothesis & fulfillment of the reversal case.
Change is an improvement if gainers in the changed situation are able to persuade the losers to accept the change and simultaneously losers are not able to persuade the gainers to remain in the original situation.
CD and EF are two UPC parallel. Movement from Q to R increase social welfare. Thus H-K satisfy.
Movement from G to Q does passed by the H-K criteria.
Thus when two UPC not intersecting and change involves movement from a position on a lower UPC to a position on a higher UPC, the changes rises social welafre on basis of H-K -S criteria.<br>
Change is an improvement if gainers in the changed situation are able to persuade the losers to accept the change and simultaneously losers are not able to persuade the gainers to remain in the original situation.
CD and EF are two UPC parallel. Movement from Q to R increase social welfare. Thus H-K satisfy.
Movement from G to Q does passed by the H-K criteria.
Thus when two UPC not intersecting and change involves movement from a position on a lower UPC to a position on a higher UPC, the changes rises social welafre on basis of H-K -S criteria.<br>
71
Criticism of H-K Criteria H-K Principle does not require actual compensation to be paid but it is not necessary that the benefits can compensate the losers.
Little H-K focus on efficiency not distribution.
(Prof. Baumol & Little) Compensation criteria is not free from value Judgment that situation it self is a value judgment.
It is not free from interpersonal comparison of utility.
Potential welfare rather than actual welfare Samuelson’s view.<br>
Little H-K focus on efficiency not distribution.
(Prof. Baumol & Little) Compensation criteria is not free from value Judgment that situation it self is a value judgment.
It is not free from interpersonal comparison of utility.
Potential welfare rather than actual welfare Samuelson’s view.<br>
72
Theory of CapabilityNassubum and A.K. Sen Dr Sanatan Nayak<br>
73
Brief History of Martha Nussbaum Martha Craven Nussbaum was born on May 6, 1947 is an American philosopher.
Nussbaum is the author or editor of a number of books, including The Fragility of Goodness (1986), Sex and Social Justice (1998),The Sleep of Reason (2002), Hiding From Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (2004), and Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (2006).
She taught philosophy and classics at Harvard in the 1970s and early 1980s, where she was denied tenure by the Classics Department in 1982.[3] Nussbaum then moved to Brown University, where she taught until 1994 when she joined the University of Chicago Law School faculty. Her 1986 book The Fragility of Goodness, on ancient Greek ethics and Greek tragedy, made her a well-known figure throughout the humanities. More recent work (Frontiers of Justice) establishes Nussbaum as a theorist of global justice.<br>
Nussbaum is the author or editor of a number of books, including The Fragility of Goodness (1986), Sex and Social Justice (1998),The Sleep of Reason (2002), Hiding From Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (2004), and Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (2006).
She taught philosophy and classics at Harvard in the 1970s and early 1980s, where she was denied tenure by the Classics Department in 1982.[3] Nussbaum then moved to Brown University, where she taught until 1994 when she joined the University of Chicago Law School faculty. Her 1986 book The Fragility of Goodness, on ancient Greek ethics and Greek tragedy, made her a well-known figure throughout the humanities. More recent work (Frontiers of Justice) establishes Nussbaum as a theorist of global justice.<br>
74
Structure and Development of Martha Nussbaum’s Capability Theory Nussbaum 'Central Capabilities:
Life: Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
Bodily health : Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
Bodily Integrity: Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
Senses, imagination and thought: Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason – and to do these things in a ‘‘truly human’’ way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training.<br>
Life: Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
Bodily health : Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
Bodily Integrity: Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
Senses, imagination and thought: Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason – and to do these things in a ‘‘truly human’’ way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training.<br>
75
Structure and Development of Martha Nussbaum’s Capability Theory cont ... Emotions: Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger.
Practical reason: Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life.
Affiliation: Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another.
Other species: Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.
Play: Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.<br>
Practical reason: Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life.
Affiliation: Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another.
Other species: Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.
Play: Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.<br>
76
Structure and Development of Martha Nussbaum’s Capability Theory cont ... Control over one’s environment:
Political: Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.
Material: Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.<br>
Political: Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.
Material: Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.<br>
77
Brief of AK Sen Amartya Kumar Sen born 3 November 1933) is an Indian economist and philosopher of Bengali ethnicity.
Since 1972 has taught and worked in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Sen has made contributions to welfare economics, social choice theory, economic and social justice, economic theories of famines, and indexes of the measure of well-being of citizens of developing countries.
He was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1998 and Bharat Ratna in 1999 for his work in welfare economics, Charleston-EFG John Maynard Keynes Prize in in February 2015 by the Royal Academy in the UK.
He is currently the Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University. He served as the chancellor of Nalanda University. He is also Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he served as Master from 1998 to 2004.
Thesis, which was on "The Choice of Techniques" in 1959<br>
Since 1972 has taught and worked in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Sen has made contributions to welfare economics, social choice theory, economic and social justice, economic theories of famines, and indexes of the measure of well-being of citizens of developing countries.
He was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1998 and Bharat Ratna in 1999 for his work in welfare economics, Charleston-EFG John Maynard Keynes Prize in in February 2015 by the Royal Academy in the UK.
He is currently the Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University. He served as the chancellor of Nalanda University. He is also Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he served as Master from 1998 to 2004.
Thesis, which was on "The Choice of Techniques" in 1959<br>
78
Major Achievements Has written many books such as Collective Choice and Social Welfare, On Economic Inequality, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, OUP, 1982, Resources, Values and Development, OUP, 1984, Commodities and Capabilities, OUP, 1987, India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity (With Jean Dreze), Development As Freedom, AUP, 2000, India: Development and Participation (With Jean Dreze), OUP, 2002, The Argumentative Indian, 2005, Penguin; The Idea of Justice, 2009, An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions ((With Jean Dreze), 2013; Development Economics, Social Choice Theory (for which Noble prize in 1998) and Philosophy, Development as Freedom in 1999.
Sen first introduced the concept of capability in his Tanner Lectures on Equality of What? in 1979) and went on to elaborate it in subsequent publications during the 1980s and 1990s.
This approach is connected with Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.<br>
Sen first introduced the concept of capability in his Tanner Lectures on Equality of What? in 1979) and went on to elaborate it in subsequent publications during the 1980s and 1990s.
This approach is connected with Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.<br>
79
Definition of Capability Approach Capability, he means, “that a person has the substantive freedom, he or she enjoys to lead the kind of life, he or she has reasons to value” (Sen, 2000).
Income poverty vrs. Lack of political power to vote.
Old age pension vrs unemployment.
It includes various types freedoms such as political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security.
Income deprivation vrs capability deprivation.
He proposed public interventions for reduction of inequality or poverty (in wider sense) for establishment of capabilities of persons based on age (old age and young), gender and social roles (custom based family obligations), by location (proneness to flood, drought, or insecurity or violence), epidemiological environment (through dieses in a region).<br>
Income poverty vrs. Lack of political power to vote.
Old age pension vrs unemployment.
It includes various types freedoms such as political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security.
Income deprivation vrs capability deprivation.
He proposed public interventions for reduction of inequality or poverty (in wider sense) for establishment of capabilities of persons based on age (old age and young), gender and social roles (custom based family obligations), by location (proneness to flood, drought, or insecurity or violence), epidemiological environment (through dieses in a region).<br>
80
Capability Deprivation Hence, conversion of capabilities deprivation is essential in addition to lowness of income.
Income and capability gets affected by persons of age, gender social roles, locations.
Income deprivation and adversity in converting income into functions.
Distribution within family.
Relative deprivation in terms of income can yield absolute deprivation in terms of capability
Income poverty and capability poverty.
According to Sen, “the notion of poverty as capability of inadequacy from that of poverty as lowness of income, these two perspectives cannot but be related, since income is such an important means to capabilities. And since enhanced capabilities in leading a life would tend, typically, to expand a person’s ability to be more productive and earn a higher income, we would also expect a connection going from capability improvement to greater earning power and not only the other way round”.<br>
Income and capability gets affected by persons of age, gender social roles, locations.
Income deprivation and adversity in converting income into functions.
Distribution within family.
Relative deprivation in terms of income can yield absolute deprivation in terms of capability
Income poverty and capability poverty.
According to Sen, “the notion of poverty as capability of inadequacy from that of poverty as lowness of income, these two perspectives cannot but be related, since income is such an important means to capabilities. And since enhanced capabilities in leading a life would tend, typically, to expand a person’s ability to be more productive and earn a higher income, we would also expect a connection going from capability improvement to greater earning power and not only the other way round”.<br>
81
Income Poverty and Capability Poverty Public Action in reducing inequality and poverty
Market reforms and social facilities or opportunities
East Asia and south east asia
investing in education and health care to control income deprivation at the end
entitlements and capability improvement.
America vrs Europe, China and Srilanka.
Gender Inequality, sex ratio, excess mortality, litaracy rate among females etc.<br>
Market reforms and social facilities or opportunities
East Asia and south east asia
investing in education and health care to control income deprivation at the end
entitlements and capability improvement.
America vrs Europe, China and Srilanka.
Gender Inequality, sex ratio, excess mortality, litaracy rate among females etc.<br>
82
Significant Observations Income Inequality and Economic Inequality.
Valuation of Diverse capability
Public Discussion and Social Participation<br>
Valuation of Diverse capability
Public Discussion and Social Participation<br>
83
Measurement of Human Capabilities Output based measures: GNP or GDP
1.it show country economic prosperity and improve living standards
Lacks to measure of well beings and quality of life
Women and Cultural Universals
Faminism
Greatest goods for all human being
Monetray and Non-Monetary measures of well beings<br>
1.it show country economic prosperity and improve living standards
Lacks to measure of well beings and quality of life
Women and Cultural Universals
Faminism
Greatest goods for all human being
Monetray and Non-Monetary measures of well beings<br>
84
Critique of output based capability Faminist critiques
Distribution of wealth to women
Unpaid works
Woman's human rights
Environmental Critiques
Nuclear weapons
Defence expenditure
Deduction in accountings
Technical and misinterpretations critiques
Kuznet: quantity and quality of growth, costs and returns, short term and long run<br>
Distribution of wealth to women
Unpaid works
Woman's human rights
Environmental Critiques
Nuclear weapons
Defence expenditure
Deduction in accountings
Technical and misinterpretations critiques
Kuznet: quantity and quality of growth, costs and returns, short term and long run<br>
85
Alternative measures Human Development index (HDI)
Gender related development Index (GDI): gender related within HDI
Gender Empowerment Measures (GEM): woman employment in high economic ranking jobs, seats in parliments and share of households income.
Gender Inequality Index (GDI): reproductive health, empowerment and labour force participation
Human Poverty Index (HPI): Non-income based income (UNDP)
Gross National Happiness (GNP): see reference<br>
Gender related development Index (GDI): gender related within HDI
Gender Empowerment Measures (GEM): woman employment in high economic ranking jobs, seats in parliments and share of households income.
Gender Inequality Index (GDI): reproductive health, empowerment and labour force participation
Human Poverty Index (HPI): Non-income based income (UNDP)
Gross National Happiness (GNP): see reference<br>
86
Sustainable Livelihood: Types of Capital Physical Capital
Natural capital: Renewable vrs non-renewable capital
Human capital
Social capital: Knowledge assets
Financial Capital
These three are complementary capital<br>
Natural capital: Renewable vrs non-renewable capital
Human capital
Social capital: Knowledge assets
Financial Capital
These three are complementary capital<br>
87
References Commodities and capabilities, A.K. Sen, OUP, 1998.
A work in Progress, the Hindu, Date:19.05.2016, p.11. develop the work.
Development As Freedom, AUP, 2000.<br>
A work in Progress, the Hindu, Date:19.05.2016, p.11. develop the work.
Development As Freedom, AUP, 2000.<br>