Advertising and Economic Welfare
探讨广告是否过度，回顾Dixit和Norman的福利分析方法及其批评，并介绍Stigler和Becker的框架，将广告视为降低特征影子价格的手段。
Is advertising socially excessive? Economists have been reluctant to consider this question, for there appeared to be no rigorous method of analyzing cases in which advertising influences tastes. Some recent studies have made fundamental contributions to this debate (Avinash Dixit and Victor Norman, 1978; Yehuda Kotowitz and Frank Mathewson, 1979), but no consensus has emerged. Dixit and Norman were the first to establish a rigorous methodology. They evaluated social welfare (SW= consumer's surplus + profits) under preand post-advertising market equilibria, using pre-advertising tastes for one ranking and post-advertising tastes for another ranking. When the SW rankings were identical, Dixit and Normal claimed that unambiguous inferences could be drawn. In general, they concluded that the profitmaximizing level of advertising will be excessive under a variety of product market structures. Franklin Fisher and John McGowan (1979) criticized Dixit and Norman for including advertising in the utility function but ignoring the direct effect that advertising has on utility in their welfare analysis. Dixit and Norman (1979) courvlered that advertising merely shifts the preference ordering over goods, and that it is this preference yardstick that matters. Welfare conclusions about advertising can be generated less controversially within the framework suggested by George Stigler and Gary Becker (1977). They treat utility as if it were generated by which individuals produce with purchased goods, time, human capital, and firms' advertising. Their commodities can be interpreted similarly to what Kevin Lancaster (1966) calls a characteristic, the terminology used herein.' As an example, consider tennis. We buy racquets and balls, not to own them per se, but rather to enjoy playing the game. Playing the game actually generates utility, and this characteristic is produced by an individual's racquet, balls, human capital (skill level), and time. Thus preferences are ordered over characteristics, not over goods. Advertising can lower the shadow price of a characteristic by increasing the ability of the purchased good to produce the desired characteristic. This is accomplished by providing the consumer with different information or beliefs about the product than previously held. Suppose a perennial tennis champion states a preference for a particular brand of racquet. This enhances the self-image of amateur owners of that brand and increases their enjoyment of the game without changing their expenditures. The per unit cost of the characteristic will decline, making current owners of the racquet likely repeat customers and current shoppers more likely to choose the star's preferred brand. Observe that advertising has increased the demand for a market good that produces the now cheaper char-