ON THE THEORY OF THE VALUATION AND ALLOCATION OF TIME: SOME COMMENTS
ON THE THEORY OF THE VALUATION AND ALLOCATION OF TIME: SOME COMMENTS
复制标题
关于时间的估价和分配理论：一些评论
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9485.1973.tb00871.x
复制
发表时间：
1973
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
J. Flemming
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Flemming
J. S.弗莱明对埃文斯（Evans，1972）有四点评论：第一点（i）指出了埃文斯遵循约翰逊（Johnson，1966）和奥尔特（Oort，1969）的一个数学错误：表明他们对工作/休闲选择的传统分析的反对不是实质性的，而是解释性的。第二点（ii）纯粹是一种解释，与埃文斯的主张（第8页）有关，即“在均衡中，（活动的）价格比率不等于边际替代率”。第三点（iii）涉及埃文斯对他的最优性条件的解释，即在时间的边际分配中暗示无差别--这是完全错误的。在我的第四个评论（iv）中，我认为埃文斯第一节的基本“活动”模型在检验节省时间的价值时是非常不恰当的。一个几乎相同的模型的替代制剂中出现的约束集中的单个活动的时间要求。它表明，在这种情况下，它确实是真实的，节省时间的价值独立于他们发生的地方，但他们是积极的价值埃文斯否认他自己的模型。最后，在第五节（v）中，我们提出了一个模型，在这个模型中，埃文斯所寻找的结果可以被识别出来，而不需要他的第四节和第五节的复杂性。(i)埃文斯的第一节讨论了工作/休闲选择的替代分析。埃文斯表示强烈倾向于下列提法：
J. S. FLEMMING1 have four comments on Evans (1972): the first (i) points out a mathematical error in which Evans follows Johnson (1966) and Oort (1969): it is shown that their objection to the conventional analysis of the work/leisure choice is not one of substance but of interpretation. The second point (ii) is purely one of interpretation and relates to Evans’ claim (p. 8) that ‘in equilibrium the ratio of the prices (of activities) is not equal to the marginal rate of substitution’. The third point (iii) relates to Evans’ interpretations of his optimality conditions as implying indifference in the marginal allocation of time-this is simply wrong. In my fourth comment (iv) I argue that the basic ‘activity’model of Evans’ section I11 is singularly ill-presented for the examination of the value of time savings. An alternative formulation of a virtually identical model is presented in which the time requirements of individual activities appear in the constraint set. It is shown that in this case it is indeed true that time savings are valued independently of where they occur but they are positively valued which Evans denies of his own model. Finally, in a fifth section (v), a model is presented in which the result Evans is looking for can be identified without the complications of his sections IV and V.(i) Evans’ section I constitutes a discussion of alternative analysis of the work/leisure choice. Evans expresses a strong preference for the following formulation: