Forgot to paste this in last post..cheers, Ken Hanly

I also wanted to ask if the same welfare critierion is used in trade theory?

In sum, disregarding the problems inherent in the Kaldor, Hicks and
Scitovsky criteria, the question must be raised again: are these objective
criteria in any sense?  Ethically, of course, the Kaldor criteria is easily
disputed as it is only a "could" and not a "would" or even a "should". As
Ian M.D. Little writes, in his famous critique:

"It seems improbable that so many people would, in England now, be prepared
to say that a change, which, for instance, made the rich so much richer that
they could (but would not) overcompensate the poor, who were made poorer,
would necessarily increase the wealth of the community." (Little, 1950:
p.90).

A point reiterated by many contemporaries (e.g. Baumol, 1946; Reder, 1947;
Samuelson, 1947).

There were three lines of defense followed by the L.S.E. economists.  The
first was to agree and make the "could" into a "would", i.e. have the
winners actually compensate the losers.  This, of course, leads to an
improvements of sorts, the practical objection that arises is that once we
are at a new allocation, winners are unlikely to surrender any of their
gains.

The second defense, pursued by Hicks (1941), was that even if the losers do
not get compensated in the move, they might still benefit in the "long-run"
if the criteria were followed consistently by society.   This argument is
similar to that of "trickle-down" theory and in arguments for  free trade:
some people may be worse off in the short-run, but in the long run, everyone
will be better off.    The underlying assumption, of course,  is that at
some point, those who lost utility initially will come across a possible
move in which they benefit and a society which follows the Kaldorian rule
will move to it and thus they will gain in the end.    Of course, as Little
(1950) notes, this is completely hypothetical.   There is nothing to
guarantee that there will eventually be a move in which the initial losers
will be the ultimate winners.

The third (and perhaps best) line of defense is that the Kaldor-Hicks
criteria merely lay out what is economically possible and that it is up to
policy-makers, on the basis of their own value judgements, to choose which
move to make and whether compensation of the losers should be forced (cf.
Kaldor, 1939; Scitovsky, 1951).    Thus, they argue, they are merely
underlining that certain options may be more economically possible than
others, but they are still only options.  The final decision will require
more philosophical, ethical and political considerations to be brought into
the story.


Reply via email to