Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Joel Waldfogel

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

A gift can be worth much more or less than its price tag. It just depends on whether you are the giver or the receiver.

One of the best gifts I have ever gotten was a book of car wash coupons. Happily, I used every one, each time feeling that I had gotten something for free. The value of the gift to me was equal to the value that the giver had paid to say thanks for driving her daughter to school every morning.

According to economist Joel Waldfogel, my experience was unusual. What we give rarely is worth as much to the recipient. As a result, he says that there is an “orgy of value destruction” during the holidays. If you are willing to pay only $25 for that $50 sweater your Aunt Minnie gave you, then $25 of value is destroyed. Called deadweight loss, Waldfogel estimates that 18 percent of the value of all gifts given during the December holidays disappears.

Is the answer cash? Not necessarily. Explained by behavioral economist Dan Ariely, the reason might be that we have market norms and social norms. A stranger asked to help someone move a sofa says no when offered a small amount of cash. However, when asked as a favor, more people willingly assisted. The former was a transaction. The second was an act of good will.

The good will takes us to gift giving. Even when value is lost on the recipient’s side, it might be gained with the giver. After all, if the pleasure of giving a $50 sweater could “add” $25 to its value and make it worth $75 to your Aunt Minnie, then that 18 percent deadweight loss is eliminated.

Maybe you think this behavioral analysis is ridiculous. But, the combination of gifts’ deadweight loss and the need to judge gifts with social norms might be why gift cards are so popular. It also explains why my car wash coupons were worth more to me than their price tag.

Sources and Resources: Joel Waldfogel conveys the academics behind his ideas in his paper, more informally explains his book, Scroogenomics, in this video, and summarizes his conclusions in this NPR segment. My top recommendation, though, is Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational in which I read about social and market norms (Chapter 4).

Past Monday Behavioral Economics Posts

Managing Risk: 11/12

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16796_give..12.11.11_000014923722XSmall

Can doing good be bad?

  1. At food banks, the holiday season brings an avalanche of food from donors when the charity could purchase the food more cheaply and use volunteer time more wisely. As a result, charitable food donations misallocate resources.
  2. According to research from economist Joel Waldfogel, we tend to undervalue the price of a gift we dislike while giving much greater value to what we buy for ourselves. As a result, gift giving destroys value.

However, this Economist article suggests remembering that 1) a gift we dislike may be good for us, 2) a gift can be an extravagance we otherwise would not purchase, and, perhaps most importantly, 3) the process of giving adds intangible value to the gift.

The Economic Lesson

Wasted giving could be called “deadweight loss.” Described by Freakonomics, it represents the difference between the cost of an item and how much the recipient values it. So, if you are a Yankee fan and someone gives you a Boston Red Sox hat, the deadweight loss would be 100% of the price. The amount by which pleasure falls is the deadweight loss.

But, is the deadweight loss of gift giving to friends and charities offset by its intangible benefits?

An Economic Question: How might you estimate the deadweight loss of gifts you have received?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16038_11.29_000006699192XSmall-4

With the holiday season beginning, we should consider the economics of gift giving. Let’s start with University of Pennsylvania Professor Joel Waldfogel who focused on receiving gifts. Then, through Duke’s Dan Ariely, we can look at how to give the best gifts.

Dr. Waldfogel’s research could make us decide not to buy any gifts. His basic conclusion was that when people express a value for a gift, the amount is usually less than the actual cost. By contrast, when they buy something for themselves the value soars. Empirically, he says that our own purchases generate on average 18% more value than purchases from others. You might enjoy looking at the survey (p. 17 of his paper) that he gave to 202 students.

Dan Ariely solves the dilemma by suggesting that we give gifts that people would feel guilty buying for themselves. As economists doing cost benefit analysis, we would say that guilt increases the cost side. By contrast, when the same item comes from someone else, because the recipient’s guilt disappears, cost diminishes. The result? Benefit exceeds cost.

The Economic Lesson

The loss in value to the gift giver and getter is called deadweight loss. Economists can draw deadweight loss on a demand and supply graph. For us now, though, just think of a loss in value as a cost.

Because value decreases for a gift, cost rises and everyone’s “pleasure” diminishes. The amount by which “pleasure” falls is the deadweight loss.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

According to Wharton School economist Joel Waldfogel, we might be better off if we stop gift giving. Dr. Waldfogel says that all too often, the value of the gift to the recipient is less than the price the giver paid. The resulting “deadweight loss” makes him conclude that holiday gift giving is not as beneficial as many assume.
Perhaps this is an ideal example of economists knowing the price of everything but not the value or (opportunity) cost.
Waldfogel discusses his research in a recent Slate article and today’s “Note”, a youtube interview:
http://www.slate.com/id/2236567
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HqM8hIP0G0

Deadweight Loss: Value that “disappears” because a price does not reflect a cost/benefit match. If you are willing to pay $30 for a t-shirt which cost a gift giver $50, then the deadweight loss is $20. If the giver got $10 of pleasure, still the deadweight loss in $10.00. More typically, deadweight loss refers to taxes and monopoly pricing.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment