Welfare Polls: A Synthesis

M. Adler
{"title":"Welfare Polls: A Synthesis","authors":"M. Adler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.885521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Welfare polls are survey instruments that seek to quantify the determinants of human well-being. Currently, three welfare polling formats are dominant: contingent-valuation surveys, QALY surveys, and happiness surveys. Each format has generated a large, specialized, scholarly literature, but no comprehensive discussion of welfare polling as a general enterprise exists. This Article seeks to fill that gap. Part I describes the trio of existing formats. Part II discusses the actual and potential uses of welfare polls in government decisionmaking. Part III analyzes in detail the obstacles that welfare polls must overcome to provide useful well-being information, and concludes that they can be genuinely informative. Part IV synthesizes the case for welfare polls, arguing against two types of challenges: the revealed-preference tradition in economics, which insists on using behavior rather than surveys to learn about well-being; and the civic-republican tradition in political theory, which accepts surveys but insists that respondents should be asked to take a citizen rather than consumer perspective. Part V suggests new directions for welfare polls.","PeriodicalId":377417,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School","volume":"6 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.885521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Welfare polls are survey instruments that seek to quantify the determinants of human well-being. Currently, three welfare polling formats are dominant: contingent-valuation surveys, QALY surveys, and happiness surveys. Each format has generated a large, specialized, scholarly literature, but no comprehensive discussion of welfare polling as a general enterprise exists. This Article seeks to fill that gap. Part I describes the trio of existing formats. Part II discusses the actual and potential uses of welfare polls in government decisionmaking. Part III analyzes in detail the obstacles that welfare polls must overcome to provide useful well-being information, and concludes that they can be genuinely informative. Part IV synthesizes the case for welfare polls, arguing against two types of challenges: the revealed-preference tradition in economics, which insists on using behavior rather than surveys to learn about well-being; and the civic-republican tradition in political theory, which accepts surveys but insists that respondents should be asked to take a citizen rather than consumer perspective. Part V suggests new directions for welfare polls.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
福利民调:一种综合
福利民意调查是一种旨在量化人类福祉决定因素的调查工具。目前,三种福利调查形式占主导地位:或有价值调查、质量调查和幸福调查。每种形式都产生了大量专门的学术文献,但没有将福利民意调查作为一般企业进行全面讨论。本文试图填补这一空白。第1部分描述了现有的三种格式。第二部分讨论了福利民意调查在政府决策中的实际和潜在用途。第三部分详细分析了福利民意调查必须克服的障碍,以提供有用的福利信息,并得出结论,他们可以真正提供信息。第四部分综合了福利民意调查的案例,反对两种类型的挑战:经济学中的揭示偏好传统,坚持使用行为而不是调查来了解福祉;以及政治理论中的公民共和传统,它接受调查,但坚持要求受访者站在公民而不是消费者的角度。第五部分提出了福利调查的新方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Web Appendix to 'The Ramsey Rule at 100: Pairing Back the Overgrowth' Assessing COVID Impacts, Sustainable Finance, Current and Future Implications for Banks and Monetary Policy: 'Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon, Climate Change and Financial Stability' A Political Economy Perspective of The Egyptian Competition Authority Social Security and Trends in Wealth Inequality Justifying Bad Deals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1