خلاصة:
Incorporating a household’s net sale status into a rearranged Slutsky equation with combined ordinary and endowment income effects, this paper aims to reinterpret the income elasticity of demand in the case of buying and selling and to associate it with types of goods in a novel manner. To this end, the Deaton’s (1989) net benefit ratio (NBR) approach is expressed as the difference between original and endowment budget shares, and formulated in its elasticity form as the difference between the Hicksian and Marshallian own-price elasticities at any given price, divided by the income elasticity. While the numerator in the latter expression is always positive (negative) for normal (inferior) goods, the denominator may be either positive or negative for either type of good, depending on the net sale position of the household. A positive NBR for a normal good implies that the household is a net demander of that good and that the income elasticity is positive. When the NBR is negative for such a good, it implies that the household is a net seller and that the income elasticity is negative. Again, a positive NBR for an inferior good refers to the fact that the household is a net demander and the income elasticity is negative, whereas a negative NBR reveals that the household is a net seller of that good, which has, unconventionally, a positive income elasticity.
ملخص الجهاز:
"However, the net benefit ratio (NBR) introduced by Deaton (1989) has been widely used in many empirical works not only to determine the proportion of households who are net food buyers and sellers but to examine the impact of rising food prices and to assess the impacts of trade policies on household welfare (Budd, 1993; Barrett & Dorosh, 1996; Arndt et al.
Thus, including endowment does not make any difference to the classic conclusion of consumer choice, and so the difference between Hicksian and Marshallian elasticities (x1 - ε1) at any given price is respectively positive and negative for normal and inferior goods, as shown in the lower parts of Figure 1.
In case of a decrease in the price of X1 shown in Figure 2, the final income or the endowment value is less than the original income, whereas the combined income effect, the movement from C to B, is negative for a normal good and positive for an inferior good.
The ordinary own price and income elasticities (ε1 and h1) were directly calculated by the Almost Ideal Demand System formulae and the Hicks elasticity coefficients were calculated as / Finally, the type of meats and fish (normal or inferior) and the net sale status of individuals were realized by the rules given in Table 1.
As discussed, this derives from the fact that the income of a net seller household of a normal good (for instance) rises with an increase in price of that good, while, as far as the combined income effect is concerned, the consumption of that good may change in the reverse direction."