À la recherche des biens sous tutelle

Clément, Valérie; Moureau, Nathalie; Vidal, Marion

doi:https://doi.org/10.7202/045070ar

Browse the articles in this issue

La dépendance démographique est-elle un obstacle à l’épargne et à la croissance en Côte d’Ivoire?

L’approche microéconomique du taux de change réel d’équilibre : une revue de la littérature théorique

Article outline

Back to top
Abstract
Bibliographie

Toolbox

PDFDownload
Cite this article
Share

Abstracts

Résumé

La notion de biens sous tutelle (merit goods) introduite par Musgrave en 1957 définit des biens pour lesquels l’évaluation sociale ne provient pas uniquement des informations fournies par les préférences individuelles. L’utilisation d’un argument de type biens sous tutelle pour justifier l’intervention de l’État est très fréquente dans le domaine culturel, la santé, la protection de la biodiversité, etc. Pour autant, la légitimité économique de cet argument demeure controversée : qu’est-ce qui peut justifier que l’État s’érige en tuteur des préférences des individus?

L’objet de cet article est de clarifier la place occupée par les biens sous tutelle en économie du bien-être. La première partie définit le concept et présente les problèmes qu’il pose à la théorie économique. Par la suite, nous montrons comment certaines extensions de la théorie, en particulier les avancées proposées par l’économie comportementale, contribuent à asseoir sa légitimité économique tant du point de vue des préférences individuelles que du choix social.

Abstract

Musgrave’s so-called merit goods, introduced in 1957, intend to deal with situations where the social weight or concern of a good differs from the information given by individual preferences. Merit goods are often referred to as a case for government intervention in education, health care or biodiversity protection policies. But theoretical roots of this concept seem a bit fuzzy and are, at best, very controversial. To put it crudely, what –if anything– can justify that government choices rule out individual choices? The paper deals with this issue. What role do merit goods play in economic theory?

The first part of the paper defines the concept of merit goods and emphasizes the theoretical issues at stake. Afterward, we show how recent developments in economic theory, especially behavorial economics, provide a useful framework for the recognition of the concept, both as for individual decision making theory as for social choice.

Appendices

Bibliographie

Becker, G. S. et G. Stigler (1977), « De Gustibus non Est Disputandum », American Economic Review, 67(2) : 76-90.
Google Scholar
Bernheim, D. B. et A. Rangel (2005), « Behavioral Public Economics: Welfare and Policy Analysis with Non Standard Decision Makers », Working Paper 04-33, Stanford University.
Google Scholar
Bernheim, D. B. et A. Rangel (2007), « Toward Choice-Theoric Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics », American Economic Review, 97(2) : 464-470.
10.1257/aer.97.2.464 Google Scholar
Bertrand, M. et S. Mullainathan (2001), « Do People Mean What they Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data », American Economic Review, 91(2) : 67-72.
10.1257/aer.91.2.67 Google Scholar
Besley, T. (1988), « A Simple Model for Merit Good Argument », Journal of Public Economics, 35(3) : 371-383.
10.1016/0047-2727(88)90038-2 Google Scholar
Blomquist, S. et L. Micheletto (2006), « Optimal Redistributive Taxation when Government’s and Agents’ Preferences Differ », Journal of Public Economics, 90 : 1215-1233.
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.001 Google Scholar
Brennan, G. et L. Lomasky (1983), « Institutional Aspects of ‘Merit Goods’ Analysis », Finanzarchiv, 41(2) : 183-206.
Google Scholar
Camerer, C.et al. (2003), « Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for Asymmetric Paternalism », University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3) : 101-144.
10.2307/3312889 Google Scholar
Easterlin, R. A. (1974), « Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence » in David, P. A. et M. W. Reder (éds). Nations and Households in Economic Growth : Essays in Honor of Moses Abramowitz, New York: Academic Press, p. 89-125.
Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1979), Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality, Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1985), « Weakness of Will and the Free-Rider Problem », Economics and Philosophy, 1(2) : 231-265.
10.1017/S0266267100002480 Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1986), « The Case for a Multiple Utility Conception », Economics and Philosophy, 2(2) :159- 183.
10.1017/S1478061500002619 Google Scholar
Feehan, J. (1990), « A Simple Model for Merit Good Arguments. A Comment », Journal of Public Economics, 43 (1) : 127-129.
10.1016/0047-2727(90)90055-M Google Scholar
Fernandez, A. et F. Kandil (1998), « Théorie de l’action et normativité chez Adam Smith et chez John C. Harsanyi », Cahiers d’économie politique, 33 : 137-159.
Google Scholar
Fiorito, R. et T. Kollintzas (2004), « Public Goods, Merit Goods and the Relation between Private and Governement Consumption », European Economic Review, 48 : 1367-1398.
10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.01.004 Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. (2007), « Social Choice and just Institutions : New Perspectives », Economics and Philosophy, 23 :15-43.
10.1017/S0266267107001204 Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. et F. Maniquet (2006), « Fair Income Tax », Review of Economic Studies, 73 : 55-83.
10.1111/j.1467-937X.2006.00369.x Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., B. Tungodden et H. F. Chang (2003) « Any Nonwelfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: A Comment », Journal of Political Economic, 111 : 1382-1385.
10.1086/378533 Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G. (1971), « Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person », Journal of Philosophy, 68(1) : 5-20.
10.2307/2024717 Google Scholar
Frey, B. S., C. Benesch et A. Stutzer (2005), « Does Watching TV Make Us Happy », Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA), WP n^o 2005-15 .
Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. et A. Stutzer (2002), « What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research », Journal of Economic Literature, 40 (2) : 402-435.
10.1257/002205102320161320 Google Scholar
Gautie, J. (2007), « L’économie à ses frontières (sociologie, psychologie). Quelques pistes », Revue économique, 58(4) : 927-939.
Google Scholar
George, D. (1993), « Does the Market Create Preferred Preferences? », Review of Social Economy, 51(3) : 323-346.
10.1080/758537261 Google Scholar
George, D. (1998), « Coping Rationally with Unpreferred Preferences », Eastern Economic Journal, 24(2) : 181-194.
Google Scholar
George, D. (2001), « Unpreferred Preferences: Unavoidable or a Failure of the Market? », Eastern Economic Journal, 27(4) : 463-479.
Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (1986), « Laundering Preferences », inElster, J. et A. Hylland (éds), Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge University Press, 75-101.
Google Scholar
Graham, C. (2008), « Happiness. Economics of », The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics on Line, 2^e édition, Ed. Durlauf & Blume, Macmillan.
Google Scholar
Harsanyi , J. C. (1997), « Utilities, Preferences, and Substantive Goods », Social Choice and Welfare, 14 : 129-145.
10.1007/s003550050057 Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. (1955), « Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility », Journal of Political Economy, 63(4) : 309-321.
10.1086/257678 Google Scholar
Head, J. G. (1974), « Merit Goods Revisited », in Public Goods and Public Welfare, Duke University Press, Durham North Carolina, p. 248-261. (Publié aussi dans Finanzarchiv, 1969, 28(2) : 214-225).
Google Scholar
Head, J. G. (1974), « On Merit Goods », in Public Goods and Public Welfare, Duke University Press, Durham North Carolina, p. 214-247. (Publié aussi dans Finanzarchiv, 1966, 25(1) : 1-29).
Google Scholar
Head, J. G. (1990), « On Merit Wants. Reflections on the Evolution, Normative Status and Policy Relevance of a Controversial Public Finance Concept », inBrennan G., Walsh C. (éds), Rationality, Individualism and Public Policy, The Australian National University, p. 211-244.
Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1984), « Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of Economic Discourse », American Economic Review, 74(2) : 89-96.
Google Scholar
Hutt, W. (1936), Economists and the Public: A Study of Competition and Opinion, London, Honathan Cape, reprinted New Brunswick.
Google Scholar
Hutt, W. (1940), « The Concept of Consumers’ Sovereignty », Economic Journal, 50(197) : 66-77.
10.2307/2225739 Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1974), « Preferences among Preferences », Journal of Philosophy, 71(13) : 377-391.
10.2307/2025160 Google Scholar
Jois, G. U. (2006), « Can’t Touch This! Private Property, Takings and the Merit Goods Argument », Working Paper, Harvard Law School : 69.
Google Scholar
Jones, P. et J. Cullis (2002), « Merit Want Status and Motivation: The Knight Meets the Selfloving Butcher, Brewer, and Baker », Public Finance Review, 30(2) : 83-101.
10.1177/109114210203000201 Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. et A. Tversky (1973), « Availability : A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability », Cognitive Psychology, 5 : 207-232.
10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. et A. Tversky (1979), « Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk », Econometrica, 47(2) : 263-291.
10.2307/1914185 Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. et A. Tversky (1981), « The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice », Science, 211 : 453-458.
10.1126/science.7455683 Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. et A. Tversky (1984), « Choices, Values and Frames », American Psychologist, 39 : 341-350.
10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341 Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., P. P. Wakker et R. Sarin (1997), « Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility », Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 : 375-405.
10.1162/003355397555235 Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.et al. (2004), « A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experience : The Day Reconstruction Method », Science, 306(5702) :1776-1780.
10.1126/science.1103572 Google Scholar
Kanbur, R., J. Pirttilä et M.Tuomala, (2006), « Non-Welfarist Optimal Taxation and Behavioral Public Economics », Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(5) : 849-868.
10.1111/j.1467-6419.2006.00268.x Google Scholar
Lazear, E. P. (2000), « Economic Imperialism », Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (1) : 99-146.
10.1162/003355300554683 Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. et E. Haisley (2008), « The Economist as Therapist: Methodological Issues Raised by ‘Light’ Paternalism », in A. Caplin et A. Schotter (éds), Perspectives on the Future of Economics: Positive and Normative Foundations, in The Handbook of Economic Methodologies, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Lowenstein, G. et P. A. Ubel (2008), « Hedonic Adaptation and the Role of Decision and Experience Utility in Public Policy », Journal of Public Economics, 92 : 1795–1810.
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.011 Google Scholar
Mann, S. (2003), « Why Organic Food in Germany is a Merit Good », Food Policy, 28 (5/6) : 459-469.
10.1016/S0306-9192(03)00057-5 Google Scholar
McLure C. E. (1968), « Merit Wants: a Normative Empty Box », Finanzarchiv, 27(2) : 474-483.
Google Scholar
Mirrlees, J. (1971), « An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation », Review of Economic Studies, 38(114) : 175-208.
10.2307/2296779 Google Scholar
Moldoveanu, M. et H. Stevenson (2001), « The Self as a Problem: The Intra-Personal Coordination of Conflicting Desires », Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(4) : 295-330.
10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00096-8 Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. A. (1957), « A Multiple Theory of Budget Determination », Finanzarchiv, 17(3) : 333-343.
Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. A. (1959), The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economic, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. A. (1969), « Provision for Social Goods », inMargolis, J. et H. Guitton (éds), Public Economics, Macmillan Press Ltd, London, p. 124-144.
Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. A. (1971), « Provision for Social Goods in the Market System », Public Finance, 26 : 304-320.
Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. A. et P. Musgrave (1973), Public Finance in Theory and Practice, McGraw Hill.
Google Scholar
Musgrave, R. A. (1987), « Merit Goods », in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate et P. Neuman (éds), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Macmillan London : 452-453.
Google Scholar
O’donoghue, T. et M. Rabin (2003), « Studying Optimal Paternalism, Illustrated by a Model of Sin Taxes », American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 93 (2) : 186–191.
10.1257/000282803321947029 Google Scholar
Opschoor, J. B. (2006), « Water and Merit Goods », International Environmental Agreements, 6(4) : 423-428.
10.1007/s10784-006-9018-y Google Scholar
Pazner, E. A. (1972), « Merit Wants and the Theory of Taxation », Public Finances, 27(4) : 460-472.
Google Scholar
Persky, J. (1993), « Retrospectives: Consumer Sovereignty», The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(1) : 183-191.
Google Scholar
Pigou,A. C. (1920), The Economics of Welfare, 3^e éd., London, Macmillan.
Google Scholar
Roskamp, K. W. (1975), « Public Goods, Merit Goods, Private Goods, Pareto Optimum and Social Optimum », Public Finances, 30(1) : 61-69.
Google Scholar
Rushton, M. (1999), « Methodological Individualism and Cultural Economics », Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(3) : 137-147.
10.1023/A:1007556402981 Google Scholar
Salanié, F. et N. Treich (2009), « Regulation in Happyville », The Economic Journal, 119(537) : 665-679.
10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02221.x Google Scholar
Sandmo, A. (1983), « Ex Post Welfare Economics and the Theory of Merit Goods », Economica, 50(197) : 19-33.
10.2307/2554118 Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1984a), « Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice », American Economic Review, 74(2) : 1-11.
Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1984b), « The Intimate Contest for Self Command », inChoice and Consequence, Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1996), « Coping Rationally with Lapses from Rationality », Eastern Economic Journal, 22(3) : 251-269.
Google Scholar
Schroyen, F. (2005), « An Alternative Way to Model Merit Good Arguments », Journal of Public Economics, 89(5/6) : 957-966.
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.006 Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Oliver and Boyd.
Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1974), « Choice, Ordering and Morality », in S. Körner (sous la direction de), Practical Reason, p. 54-57.
Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1977), « Rational Fools : A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory », Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4) : 317-344.
Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1979), « Utilitarianism and Welfarism », Journal of Philosophy, 76(8) : 463-489.
10.2307/2025934 Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. et C.R. Sunstein (2003), « Libertarian Paternalism », American Economic Review, 93(2) : 175-179.
10.1257/000282803321947001 Google Scholar
Tomer, J.F. (1996), « Good Habits and Bad Habits : A New Age of Socio-Economic Model of Preference Formation », Journal of Socio-Economics, 25(6) : 619-638.
10.1016/S1053-5357(96)90043-8 Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. (2007), « Perspectives from the Happiness Literature and the Role of New Instruments for Policy Analysis », IZA, Discussion paper, 2568.
Google Scholar
Ver Eecke, W. (2001), « The Concept of ‘Merit Good’ the Ethical Dimension in Economic Theory and the History of Economic Thought or the Transformation of Economics into Socio Economics », Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(1) : 133-153.
10.1016/S1053-5357(99)80081-X Google Scholar
Wenzel H.-D. et Wiegard W. (1981), « Merit Goods and Second-Best Taxation », Public Finance, 36 (1) : 125-139.
Google Scholar
West, E. G. et M. MacKee (1983), « De Gustibus est Disputandum, the Phenomenon of Merit Wants Revisited », American Economic Review, 7(5) : 1110-1121.
Google Scholar

Abstracts

Résumé

Abstract

Appendices

Bibliographie

Citation Tools

Cite this article

Export the record for this article