Could a Basic Result in Optimum Commodity Taxation Theory Have Been Derived Much Earlier than It Was?

Martina, Alan

doi:10.1215/00182702-32-1-139

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 A considerable literature has built on the assumption of tax distortion. In addition to those already noted, see, for example, Atkinson & Stiglitz (1976), Browning (1976Browning ( , 1994, Coleman (2000), Debreu (1954), Gradstein (1999), Harberger (1964, 1971, Hotelling (1938), Kay (1980), Lau (1978), Martina (2000), Samuelson (1986), Sandmo (1976), andStutzer (1982). 3 Following Marshall's way of presenting lost surplus, I will usually treat the marginal cost as constant and the supply curve thus horizontal.…”

Section: Shifting Consumption Patterns In a Fully Private Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it Time to Bury Dead-Weight Loss?

George

2012

Review of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conventional argument to explain how taxes distort points out that the relative mix of private goods is altered by taxes. This argument breaks down, however, when it is recognized that a lump-sum alters the relative mix of goods as long as goods differ their income elasticities. This paper argues that claims of tax distortion rest on the assumption that collective decisions to alter consumption do not alter marginal benefits while private decisions to alter consumption do, and that this assumption is problematic. The view of government as an external, nondemocratic force is best understood as an outcome of the pre-democratic roots of economic thinking as well as the skeptical public-choice view of government as comprising self-interested actors.

show abstract

Section: Shifting Consumption Patterns In a Fully Private Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it Time to Bury Dead-Weight Loss?

George

2012

Review of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Out of these publications, just three chapters are devoted to Ramsey's contribution to economics, and these are mainly summaries or theoretical rather than historical reflections. 3 Other relevant sources include Wulwick (1995), who discusses formal aspects of Ramsey's 1928 paper;Boianovsky (1998), who compares Wicksell's and Ramsey's theory of interest; Martina (2000), who analyzes Ramsey's 1927 optimal taxation paper;andGaspard (2003, 2005), who focuses mostly on Ramsey's 1928 growth paper but also discusses the Cambridge environment in which Ramsey was educated and worked. 4 The discussion about Ramsey's economics has focused in general on only one of his two important papers, and not on his economics research agenda.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frank P. Ramsey: A Cambridge Economist

Duarte¹

2009

History of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

* Background material for a Presentation on June 6, 2007 at the Summer Institute for the Preservation of the History of Economics, at the Center for the Study of Public Choice, George Mason University. † This article is based on parts of my Ph.D. dissertation. I thank CAPES (Brazil) for financial support. I am very grateful to professors Roy Weintraub, Kevin Hoover, Neil de Marchi, Craufurd Goodwin and Craig Burnside for all encouragement and suggestions. I thank also Kirk White, Tiago Mata and Paul Dudenhefer for comments and criticisms. As usual, I am responsible for the final outcome and any remaining inaccuracies.

show abstract

Beyond Samuelson's Chapter on Ramsey

Duarte

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Could a Basic Result in Optimum Commodity Taxation Theory Have Been Derived Much Earlier than It Was?

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Is it Time to Bury Dead-Weight Loss?

Is it Time to Bury Dead-Weight Loss?

Frank P. Ramsey: A Cambridge Economist

Beyond Samuelson's Chapter on Ramsey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About