Judging social priority and the marginal utility of income among individuals

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a22000004u 4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20260014944</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20260603180742.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">260305s2026    usa||||       ||| ||eng d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">921.4</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080193942</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Hammitt, James K.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Judging social priority and the marginal utility of income among individuals</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">James K. Hammitt</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Weighted benefit-cost analysis (wBCA) is gaining attention as a method to incorporate distributional concerns in policy evaluation. Weights aim to reflect differences in the marginal utility of income and the social value of improving wellbeing. However, there is no objective method for interpersonal or intrapersonal utility comparisons, making weight selection judgmental. The paper reviews approaches to estimate marginal utility, including subjective wellbeing, risk aversion, intertemporal choices, and tax schedules, highlighting their limitations. It also examines heterogeneity in utility functions and age-based weighting, discussing implications for fairness and social welfare functions. The conclusion emphasizes that weights must be based on normative judgments, constrained by consistency requirements, and considers practical and ethical challenges in applying wBCA.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="522" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Internacional</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080546915</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Economía</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080586850</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Política económica</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080588953</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Análisis de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080616052</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Aspectos socio-económicos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20200021438</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Ageingnomics. Economia senior</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20210010194</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">13/04/2026 Volumen 34 - 2026 </subfield>
      <subfield code="t">The Journal of the economics of ageing </subfield>
      <subfield code="d">Oxford : Elsevier ScienceDirect, 2021-</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2026.100639</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>