BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Wiśniewski Tomasz P. (Warsaw School of Economics, Poland)
Should income be taken for granted as a sole driver of welfare? Bayesian insight on the relevance of non-income drivers of welfare
International Journal of Management and Economics, 2018, vol. 54, nr 1, s. 58-68, tab., bibliogr. 23 poz.
Zeszyty Naukowe / Szkoła Główna Handlowa. Kolegium Gospodarki Światowej
Słowa kluczowe
Dobrobyt, Prawdopodobieństwo, Pomiary
Prosperity, Probability, Measurement
Klasyfikacja JEL: I31, C11
The paper consists of a discussion on the relevance of non-income drivers of welfare. This discussion is based on a subjective Bayesian reasoning, where welfare perceptions are subjectively rational decisions of individuals, who are, as author suggests, the ultimate decision-makers in respect of what welfare actually means for them. The objective of the paper is to investigate if income should be taken for granted as a sole driver of welfare. The conclusion is drawn from a methodological investigation of this question in a Bayesian concept of probability with a consideration for correlations among income and non-income drivers of welfare. It suggests that income should not be taken for granted as a sole driver of welfare since the non-income factors, which are not correlated with income, appear to be relevantly affecting individuals' perceptions of welfare with Bayesian probability of almost 65%. Thereby, the paper is a reaffirmation of a need for further research in the area of welfare measures that might constitute an alternative to income-dominated indicators. Its value emanates from unambiguous answer in favour of the relevance of non-income drivers across welfare perceptions, which, without Bayesian reasoning, could remain unsolved at the point of 50% odds for relevance (irrelevance).(original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Szkoły Głównej Handlowej w Warszawie
Pełny tekst
  1. Deardorff A.V. (2014), "Welfare", Deardorffs' Glossary of International Economics, retrieved from University of Michigan resources [1 September 2017].
  2. DeDeo S. (2016), Bayesian Reasoning for Intelligent People, Draft paper of the Carnegie Mellon University and the Santa Fe Institute.
  3. Dietz S., Groom B., Pizer W.A. (2016), Weighing the costs and benefits of climate change to our children, "The Future of Children", Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 133-155.
  4. Frijters P., Van Praag B.M.S. (1998), The effects of climate on welfare and wellbeing in Russia, "Climate Change", Vol. 39, pp. 61-81.
  5. Gilboa I. (2009), Theory of decision under uncertainty, Econometric Society Monograph Series, Vol. 45, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  6. Gilboa I., Maccheroni F., Marinacci M., Schmeidler D. (2010), Objective and subjective rationality in a multiple prior model, "Econometrica", Vol. 78, pp. 755-770.
  7. Hayek F.A. (1937), Economics and knowledge, "Economica", Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 33-54.
  8. Heathwood C. (2014), Subjective theories of well-being, in: B. Eggleston, D.E. Miller, (Eds), The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 199-219.
  9. Helliwell J.F., Huang H. (2010), How's the job? Well-being and social capital in the workplace, "Industrial and Labor Relations Review", Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 205-227.
  10. Hogben L. (1993), Mathematics for the million: how to master the magic of numbers, W.W. Norton & Company, London.
  11. Ikeda Y., Yagi K. (2012), Subjectivism and objectivism in the history of economic thought, Routledge, London.
  12. Judge T.A., Thoresen C.J., Bono J.E., Patton G.K. (2001), The job satisfaction - job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, "Psychological Bulletin", Vol. 127, No. 3, pp. 376-407.
  13. Kahneman D., Deaton A. (2010), High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 107, No. 38, pp. 16489-16493.
  14. Kassenboehm S.C., Haisken-DeNew J.P. (2009), You're Fired! The causal negative effect of entry unemployment on life satisfaction, "The Economic Journal", Vol. 119, No. 536, pp. 448-462.
  15. Keller S. (2009), Welfare as success, "Noûs", Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 656-683.
  16. Lin E. (2017), Against welfare subjectivism, "Noûs", Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 354-377.
  17. Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. (1982), An evolutionary theory of economic change, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London.
  18. Nordhaus W.D., Tobin J. (1972), Is growth obsolete?, "Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect", Vol. 5, pp. 1-80.
  19. Skidelsky R. (2012), Happiness, equality and the search for economic growth, The Guardian, retrieved from The Guardian international edition [30 September 2017].
  20. Smith A. (2007), An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, MetaLibri Digital Library, Lausanne.
  21. Vanberg V. (2009), Evolving preferences and policy advice in democratic society, The papers on economics and evolution #0919, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena.
  22. Yelle B. (2016), In defense of sophisticated theories of welfare, Philosophia, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 1409-1418.
  23. Zhuang J. (2011), Poverty, inequality, and inclusive growth in Asia: measurement, policy issues, and country studies, Anthem Press, London.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu