THE MEASUREMENT OF REAL INCOME
THE MEASUREMENT OF REAL INCOME
复制标题
实际收入的计量
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a040799
复制
发表时间：
1958
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Hicks
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Hicks
在1940年的论文中有两个主要的争论：（1）用真实的术语衡量可能意味着对效用的估价，或者对成本的估价，而这两种含义在原则上是不同的;（2）效用的衡量与效用的累加的可能性无关。第一个论点似乎经受住了激烈的争论;虽然我从中得出的实际结果受到了一些批评，但这种区分本身的理论有效性仍然是无可指责的。但第二个，正如所提出的，已被证明是错误的。当这个错误被纠正后，还有多少剩余，这是一个其他人已经讨论过的问题;但我认为我有权利（或者也许有责任）自己检查一下。在本文中，我建议将成本和效用度量之间的区别视为理所当然;并将注意力集中在效用度量上--从效用的角度对社会收入进行估价。这本《社会收入的估价》（《经济学》，1940年），以下简称VSI*《需求理论的修订》（牛津，1966年），以下简称RDT。我也许可以暗示我在那本书中对需求理论的两种用途--计量经济学用途和福利经济学用途--所作的区分。正如我的批评者们毫不犹豫地指出的那样，人们很可能会怀疑，仅仅为了计量经济学的目的，采用一个纯粹的静态理论并发展它，就像我在书中所发展的那样，是否明智。如果我心里没有别的目的，我自己也会羞于这样做的。虽然我还没有准备好关于这个显然需要的另一个应用的配套卷，但我在这个方向上必须说的一些主要事情将在本论文中出现。正如库兹涅茨的“社会收入的估价”（Economiea，1948年）。间接税的存在并不一定意味着价格和社会成本之间的差异（因为税收可能只包括对公共服务生产的贡献，而这些贡献并没有支付），这是可以接受的一点。但是，很难看出这种对应关系是普遍有效的。我甚至认为，如果统计学家仅仅假设，作为一种惯例，它总是（即使在“福利国家”）可以被认为存在，那么他就会陷入最令人困惑的困境。
There were two main contentions in the 1940 paper:(1) that measurement in real terms may mean valuation in respect of utility, or in respect of cost, and that these meanings are in principle different;(2) that the utility measure is independent of the possibility of aggregating utilities. The first of these contentions appears to have stood up quite well to the fire of controversy; though there has been some criticism of the practical consequences which I drew from it, 3 the theoretical validity of the distinction itself remains unimpugned. But the second, as presented, has been shown to be fallacious. How much remains, when this error has been corrected, is a matter that has been much discussed by others; but I think that I have some right (or perhaps duty) to examine it myself.* I propose in this paper to take for granted the distinction between cost and utility measures; and to concentrate attention upon the utility measure—the valuation of the Social Income on the side of utility. This1" The Valuation of the Social Income'(Economica, 1940); hereinafter cited as VSI* A Revision of Demand Theory (Oxford, 1966); hereinafter cited as RDT I may perhaps alludo to the distinction which I make in that book to the two uses of Demand Theory—the Econometric use and the use in Welfare Economics. It can well be doubted, as my critics have not been slow to point out, whether it was sensible to take a purely static theory and to develop it, solely for econometric purposes, quite as far as I did devolop it in my book. I should indeed myself have been shy of doing this if I had not had the other purpose in mind also. Though I am not yet ready with the companion volume on this other application, which is obviously called for, some of the main things which I have to say in that direction will emerge in the course of the present paper.* As by Kuznets," The Valuation of the Social Income'(Economiea, 1948). That the existence of indirect taxes does not necessarily imply a divergence between prices and social cOBts (since the taxes may do no more than cover the contributions to production of public services that are not otherwise paid for) is a point that may be accepted. But it is most difficult to see that such a correspondence can be generally valid. I should even have thought that the statistician would get himself into the most perplexing difficulties if he merely assumed, as a convention, that it could always (even in a'Welfare state') be taken to exist.