Content
September 30, 2026
With children ages 15,13,7, and 7 it is often hard to find entertainment options that are both appropriate for all and entertaining for all. Recently, we discovered the television show, Young Sheldon, and have greatly enjoyed it. In one episode, the main character’s “Mee-maw” (that’s Texan for Grandma) refuses to share her famous brisket recipe with her son-in-law. This episode made me ask the question: Why in the world wouldn’t anyone share a delicious recipe?
The question reminded me of the famous article, "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas,” in which Waldfogel (1993) argues that gift giving causes a welfare loss to society. The premise is credible, especially for anyone who has received a dud gift. The economic analysis in this case compares the gift recipient’s maximum willingness to pay, and the amount actually paid by the gift giver. In many cases, the amount paid exceeds the most the gift receiver would have paid, which detracts from overall consumer surplus.
Waldfogel utilizes indifference curves to theorize his point. While this is effective and understandable to economists, a simpler metric would be asking the gift recipient if they would have paid the purchase price of the gift. Either approach gets to the same basic question: Did the gift create as much value for the recipient as the resources used to purchase it?
Waldfogel concludes that somewhere between one-tenth and one-third of the value of gifts may be destroyed through gift giving. He compares the magnitude of this welfare loss with the welfare losses associated with taxation. Importantly, however, the original article does not attempt to explain why gift giving continues. Solnick and Hemenway (1996) pick up where Waldfogel leaves off, concluding the opposite; gift-giving creates additional value. Waldfogel himself follows up with an article and a book, analyzing the questions more from Solnick and Hemenway’s standpoint, but defending his original analysis, nonetheless. In the end of this econ rap battle, the only conclusion to be made is that the value of a gift has two parts; the actual gift, and the harder-to-measure sentiment.
I've used the original article in the past as a classroom activity for 100-300 level econ courses; and I believe it to be an effective teaching tool. It successfully highlights multiple introductory level concepts, applies them to experiences most of us have, challenges economic theory, and finally concludes with a strong argument that an economic way of thinking applies to real life, even when applied to the emotion-driven cultural norm of gift giving.
So, what does this have to do with recipes and recipe sharing? Before answering that question, it helps to review one of the fundamental assumptions behind economic analysis: the rational actor.
Rational Actors and Utility
One of the assumptions of economic analysis is that humans are rational actors. Simply put, we make choices that we expect will make us better off, given the information available to us and the constraints we face (Becker, 1976).
At first, this definition can seem inconsistent with everyday life. After all, we make mistakes often. We buy things we don’t need, eat things we know we shouldn’t, and sometimes make the same mistakes over once again. To see why the rational actor theory holds, consider this account from my early-adult life.
In 2003 McDonalds introduced the McGriddle, a breakfast sandwich of meat, egg, and cheese sandwiched between two syrup infused griddle cakes. Author fact: I love breakfast, and I love pouring syrup on top of everything even more. To say I was excited about the McGriddle is an understatement.
Shortly after the introduction of McGriddles, I found myself on the way to a wedding in Bridgeport, NE. On that trip, I stopped at the first Golden Arches and ordered two McGriddles. That’s where the story heads south. The meat, egg, and cheese tasted great, but the griddle cakes were awful.
I soldiered on and had a fantastic weekend with my college friends. After a weekend of celebrating, my first stop on the way home was a different set of Golden Arches where I ordered, you guessed it, two more McGriddles…and the outcome didn’t change.
If the definition of crazy is doing the same thing with the expectation of a different outcome, how were my actions in accordance with rational actor theory?
It’s really pretty straightforward; I didn’t expect a different outcome.
In my 22-year-old mind, I couldn’t bank my entire future breakfast happiness on one McDonalds experience. I needed more information. Perhaps the first restaurant had prepared the griddle cakes incorrectly or received a bad batch.
I was willing to spend another $6 to find out. That $6 was, in effect, an investment in information. If the second Golden Arches produced delicious sandwiches, I could look forward to a lifetime of breakfast happiness. If it was bad again, I could find solace in being sure about my preferences (plus, I ordered a McMuffin, just in case).
When I made that calculation, I was thinking about the value (or happiness, or well-being) that a lifetime of delicious breakfast sandwiches would provide. This is basically the definition of utility. I had a professor who described utility on the spectrums of usefulness and happiness; if we valued something enough to purchase the item, it had to have some of either (if not both)
The Economics of Recipe Sharing
Food clearly holds utility. Tasty food registers high on both usefulness and happiness. When someone bakes cookies or makes delicious chili, the people eating the food receive utility. But the person cooking/baking can receive utility as well. There is satisfaction in creating something others enjoy, particularly when those people are friends and family.
This is an important part of understanding gift giving that is easy to overlook. The giver doesn’t necessarily receive zero benefit from giving the gift. That act of making someone else happy can provide immense utility as well, exactly the dimension Waldfogel( 1993) missed.
Making other people happy is a tenet of parenthood. While self-interest continues to apply into our childbearing years, raising children is not without tradeoffs. We give up hobbies, consumption, and even friends so that we can devote those resources to raising our children.
From a traditional economic perspective, this isn’t irrational. These personal tradeoffs can be viewed as a utility maximizing choice. Watching my children thrive is infinitely more rewarding than shaving a stroke off my 20+ golf handicap.
If the article/analysis ended here, the reader would assume that people graciously share recipes. If we are willing to share our time, money, food, and other resources with our children, why wouldn’t we share our recipes with people beyond our family and friends?
This is where the economics of recipe sharing gets interesting.
Why Not Share the Recipe
I conducted some very informal qualitative research on this topic by asking several family members about the topic.
The first question I asked my mother-in-law (Judy), wife (Erin), and two sisters in law (Kris and Kristy), was simple:
“Can any of you send me the banana bread recipe?”
Judy responded immediately with a picture of the recipe card. Shortly thereafter, Kris followed suit with the same recipe in different handwriting.
I followed up with:
“I need it for an extension article I’m writing about the economics of recipe sharing, is it ok to publish?”
To which my mother-in-law replied,
“Yes, but it comes from the Schrok family. Kris’ brother in law’s family.”
I told them I thought this made the article even better. Sharing a recipe that was so good, you were morally required to share it, and they agreed. (Also note it was important that Judy give credit to the original baker…)
I pressed further, asking them why, in one short text, why someone might not be motivated to share a recipe? To which Kris replied,
“Pride. They want to be the only one able to make it. I’ve met a couple of people who wouldn’t share. I’m always flattered if someone likes it enough to ask for the recipe.”
Framing this response in our utility maximizing/rational actor framework can paint recipe non-sharers in a less negative light. These bakers/chefs feel an immense amount of utility when they see someone enjoying their food creation.
If they share their creation, they lose the exclusivity and the utility of being the one person who can create such a magical product. To them, this is more important than sharing. What they don’t understand is the cost-free nature of recipe sharing and the immortality of passing a recipe on.
My mother-in-law is great baker/chef and naturally magnanimous. Her evil side comes out though, when she makes me try her failed recipes without me knowing they’re duds…
Judy: “I just wanted to make sure it was awful…thanks.”
Her generosity is often seen in acts of service, and that often includes feeding a crew. One of the entire family’s favorites is a long-shared recipe; Mrs. Zinn’s cake.
Now, Judy and her husband Dave know who Mrs. Zinn was, but even they were once removed from the original recipe/person. The cake has existed in the McClellan family for 40+ years, and Mrs. Zinn has long passed. When Judy makes Mrs. Zinn’s cake, everyone is happy; just as everyone is happy when it’s replicated by subsequent generations (By Erin, Kris, or Kristy).
Mrs. Zinn shared a recipe and created utility for many generations to come; most of whom she never had the chance to meet. Under-sharing recipes could also be framed as situations whereby sharers do not understand the benefits to those they don’t know. In that framework the existence of a positive externality explains the situation.
I don’t believe the positive externality market failure framework has to persist. It will never, ever be Mrs. McClellan’s cake, or Mrs. Broquard’s cake, or Mrs. Meyer’s cake….it will always be Mrs. Zinn’s cake. Every time you prepare exclusive food that makes people smile, think about passing that utility on and perform a pareto optimizing move; share your best recipes!
Schrock’s Famous Banana Bread
Bakeware/baking directions: Bake in one greased and floured loaf pan at 325 degrees F for approximately 1H 20 minutes.
Ingredients: 2 eggs, 1C bananas (2 ripe bananas), ½ C oil, 1/4C + 1Tbsp buttermilk, 1 tsp. vanilla
Cream wet ingredients, then add:
1 1/3C flour, 1 ½ C sugar, 1 tsp: baking soda, 1 tsp salt.
Author’s note: I’ve made this bread, and it’s almost idiot proof. My first attempt, I took it out too early. I ate the edges and pieces that stuck to the loaf pan that I had not greased well enough while the gooey mess that I put back into the pan finished baking. Then I mutilated that loaf trying to remove it…but it tasted amazing as well. The second attempt was much better!
References
Becker, Gary S. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solnick, S. J., & Hemenway, D. (1996). The deadweight loss of Christmas: Comment. American Economic Review, 86(5), 1299–1305.
Waldfogel, J. (1993). The deadweight loss of Christmas. American Economic Review, 83(5), 1328–1336.
Waldfogel, J. (1996). The deadweight loss of Christmas: Reply. American Economic Review, 86(5), 1306–1308
Waldfogel, Joel. 1998. “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Reply.” American Economic Review 88(5): 1358–1359.
Timothy Meyer
Associate Professor of Practice
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
tmeyer19@unl.edu