Abstract
This paper develops an economic analysis of the toilet seat etiquette. I investigate whether there is any efficiency justification for the presumption that men should leave the toilet seat down after use. I find that the "down rule" is inefficient unless there is a large asymmetry in the inconvenience costs of shifting the position of the toilet seat across genders. I show that the "selfish" or the "status quo" rule that leaves the toilet seat in the position used dominates the down rule in a wide range of parameter spaces including the case where the inconvenience costs are the same. (JEL D7, H4)
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 303-309 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Economic Inquiry |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 Jan 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Business, Management and Accounting(all)
- Economics and Econometrics
Cite this
}
Up or down? A male economist's manifesto on the toilet seat etiquette. / Choi, Jay P.
In: Economic Inquiry, Vol. 49, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 303-309.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Up or down? A male economist's manifesto on the toilet seat etiquette
AU - Choi, Jay P.
PY - 2011/1/1
Y1 - 2011/1/1
N2 - This paper develops an economic analysis of the toilet seat etiquette. I investigate whether there is any efficiency justification for the presumption that men should leave the toilet seat down after use. I find that the "down rule" is inefficient unless there is a large asymmetry in the inconvenience costs of shifting the position of the toilet seat across genders. I show that the "selfish" or the "status quo" rule that leaves the toilet seat in the position used dominates the down rule in a wide range of parameter spaces including the case where the inconvenience costs are the same. (JEL D7, H4)
AB - This paper develops an economic analysis of the toilet seat etiquette. I investigate whether there is any efficiency justification for the presumption that men should leave the toilet seat down after use. I find that the "down rule" is inefficient unless there is a large asymmetry in the inconvenience costs of shifting the position of the toilet seat across genders. I show that the "selfish" or the "status quo" rule that leaves the toilet seat in the position used dominates the down rule in a wide range of parameter spaces including the case where the inconvenience costs are the same. (JEL D7, H4)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651066503&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78651066503&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00277.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00277.x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:78651066503
VL - 49
SP - 303
EP - 309
JO - Economic Inquiry
JF - Economic Inquiry
SN - 0095-2583
IS - 1
ER -