Hochman and Rodgers on Brennan and Walsh: Reply

Geoffrey Brennan and Cliff Walsh

Public Finance Review, 1974, vol. 2, issue 3, 383-392

Abstract: Harold Hochman and James Rodgers' response to our reconsideration of their discussion of Paretian redistribution indicates that their model and ours are quite distinct. However, the differences emerge from a number of assumptions that had not been explicitly raised in their earlier discussions of the model; and while these assumptions are not implausible, it is not clear that systematic analysis of them would yield the sort of redistributive patterns that their formal models have produced. Moreover, their response totally misinterprets our comments on the transfer-elasticity concept (which we argue obscures aspects of the transfer process which have an important bearing on the final redistributive pattern), and on the normative significance of the notion of Pareto desirable redistribution (which we believe to be less than H&R. have suggested).

Date: 1974
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109114217400200307 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:2:y:1974:i:3:p:383-392

DOI: 10.1177/109114217400200307

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Public Finance Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().