Peoples' concerns for status may raise problems for traditional economic models. For example, concern for status leads people to have interdependent preferences. Recent empirical work has been done to determine the scope and magnitude of this concern with regard to income. This paper builds on these recent empirical findings. Using a survey, this paper shows that status-driven concerns for income are abundant and vary over a wide range. Based on information supplied by participants, women showed more concern for status than men. Family income and future expectations also were significant in an ordered probit regression.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AncilR.HakesD. (1991): “Antecedents and Implications of Hirsch's Positional Goods,”History of Political Economy, 23 (2), 263–278.
2.
DuesenberryJ. (1949): Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
3.
EasterlinR. (1974): “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence,” inNations and Households in Economic Growth, ed. by DavidP.RederM., pp. 89–126. Academic Press, New York.
4.
“Economic Focus: Chasing the Dream.”The Economist, August 9, 2003, 62.
5.
HirschF. (1976): Social Limits to Growth. Havard University Press, Cambridge.
6.
FrankR. (1985): Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status, Oxford University Press, New York.
7.
→ FrankR. (1997): “The Frame of Reference as a Public Good,”The Economic Journal, 107 (445), 1832–1847.
8.
LayardR. (2003): “Happiness: Has Social Science a Clue?”Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures, March 3–5, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
9.
McKenzieLionel (1955): “Competitive Equilibrium with Dependent Consumer Preferences,”Second Symposium on Linear Programming, pp. 277–294. National Bureau of Standards and Department of the Air Force, Washington.
10.
PingleM.MitchellM. (2002): “What motivates positional concerns for income?”Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 127–148.
11.
RothA. E. (1995): InHandbook of experimental economics, ed. By KagelJ.RothA., pp. 3–98. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
12.
→ SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR. (1988): “Status quo bias in decision making,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
13.
→ SolnickS.HemenwayD. (1998): “Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37, 373–383.
14.
ThalerR. (1987): “The psychology of choice and the assumptions of economics,” inLaboratory experimentation in economics: Six points of view, ed. by RothA., pp. 99–130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15.
→ TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981): “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,”Science, 211, 453–458.
16.
Veblen (1899): The Theory of the Leisure Class, Macmillan, New York.
17.
WallisW.FriedmanM. (1942): “The empirical derivation of indifference functions,” inStudies in mathematical economics and econometric in memory of Henry Schultz, ed. by LangeO.McIntyreF.YntemaT.O., pp. 175–189. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
18.
ZizzoD.OswaldA. (2001): “Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others' Incomes?”.
