Reply to "A Note on Complementarity Over Time".
The article presents the authors' reply to comments made by Tapan Biswas on their article "Optimal Growth with Intertemporally Dependent Preferences." Biswas has raised three criticisms of the definition of intertemporal complementarity used in their paper: (1) it does not compensate for the income...
| Publicado en: | Review of Economic Studies Vol. 43; no. 1; pp. 183 - 185 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Feb76
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=4622898&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 4622898 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00346527 REM jtl: Review of Economic Studies issn: 00346527 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb76 vid: 43 iid: 1 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 4622898 10.2307/2296612 ppf: 183 ppct: 2 formats: tig: atl: Reply to "A Note on Complementarity Over Time". aug: au: Heal, Geoffrey Ryder, Harl E. affil: University of Sussex Brown University. su: Income Linear complementarity problem Biswas, Tapan Consumption (Economics) Finance Economics Social sciences Criticism sug: subj: Income Linear complementarity problem Biswas, Tapan Consumption (Economics) Finance Economics Social sciences Criticism ab: The article presents the authors' reply to comments made by Tapan Biswas on their article "Optimal Growth with Intertemporally Dependent Preferences." Biswas has raised three criticisms of the definition of intertemporal complementarity used in their paper: (1) it does not compensate for the income effect, (2) it is not a symmetric relationship and (3) complementarity between c(t) and c(t) depends on the choice of t. His observations are all quite correct. It does not follow, however, that the concept is "totally meaningless". Indeed, the authors believe that, with all its difficulties, it is more meaningful than the Edgeworth-Pareto concept to which Biswas proposes to return. The authors are hesitant to define "substitutes" as the opposite of complements - in this sense, although Biswas has attributed such a definition to them. One reason for this unnoticed reticence is that" substitutes "seems too well established in the Hicksian sense as the normal case: it is well known that if all goods are independent, all pairs of goods are Hicksian "substitutes." pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y dt: @attributes: year: 1976 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|