Abstract
Labour economics textbooks present inconsistent methods for determining substitution and income effects. Hicks (1939) and Samuelson (1953) developed two different methods separating substitution and income effects. While both methods result in the same conclusion regarding the direction of the effects, they differ on magnitude of the effects. Furthermore, economics instructors are typically unaware of the inconsistency in labour economics textbooks, causing them to consider students � answers as incorrect when they may not be. This paper advocates for the selection of a standard approach in labour economics instruction, and acknowledges that these different methods are currently a source of confusion for students.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Teaching & Education
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
