Hochman and Rodgers on Brennan and Walsh: Reply

Abstract

Harold Hochman and James Rodgers' response to our reconsideration of their discussion of Paretian redistribution indicates that their model and ours are quite distinct. However, the differences emerge from a number of assumptions that had not been explicitly raised in their earlier discussions of the model; and while these assumptions are not implausible, it is not clear that systematic analysis of them would yield the sort of redistributive patterns that their formal models have produced. Moreover, their response totally misinterprets our comments on the transfer-elasticity concept (which we argue obscures aspects of the transfer process which have an important bearing on the final redistributive pattern), and on the normative significance of the notion of Pareto desirable redistribution (which we believe to be less than H&R. have suggested).