Inequality and Spending Policy

D. Hasen
{"title":"Inequality and Spending Policy","authors":"D. Hasen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3538799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reformers often argue that the welfare benefits of ameliorating inequality are worth the cost in reduced economic efficiency that supposedly results from associated increases in government spending. This paper argues that these arguments are mostly misguided. Focusing solely on the marginal benefit of government- versus private-sector spending, there is ample reason to conclude that many governmental expenditures directed to reducing inequality are justifiable on the basis that they improve overall efficiency, even as they also reduce inequality. Because the efficiency argument directly addresses the concerns that otherwise animate restraint in redistributive programs, treating the reduction of inequality as a tradeoff against efficiency losses that is otherwise worthwhile is mostly counterproductive from a social policy perspective. Reformers instead should engage proponents of economic efficiency on their own terms.<br><br>In making this argument, the paper also develops the concept of “budget policy endogeneity,” or the idea that the affordability or not of various programs must take into account the allocative and distributional effects of current spending on future wealth, since revenue for current projects may be raised in the future. If current spending enhances allocative efficiency, programs that can only be funded with borrowing today create the conditions for their relatively less burdensome repayment tomorrow.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3538799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reformers often argue that the welfare benefits of ameliorating inequality are worth the cost in reduced economic efficiency that supposedly results from associated increases in government spending. This paper argues that these arguments are mostly misguided. Focusing solely on the marginal benefit of government- versus private-sector spending, there is ample reason to conclude that many governmental expenditures directed to reducing inequality are justifiable on the basis that they improve overall efficiency, even as they also reduce inequality. Because the efficiency argument directly addresses the concerns that otherwise animate restraint in redistributive programs, treating the reduction of inequality as a tradeoff against efficiency losses that is otherwise worthwhile is mostly counterproductive from a social policy perspective. Reformers instead should engage proponents of economic efficiency on their own terms.

In making this argument, the paper also develops the concept of “budget policy endogeneity,” or the idea that the affordability or not of various programs must take into account the allocative and distributional effects of current spending on future wealth, since revenue for current projects may be raised in the future. If current spending enhances allocative efficiency, programs that can only be funded with borrowing today create the conditions for their relatively less burdensome repayment tomorrow.
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
不平等与支出政策
改革者经常认为,改善不平等所带来的福利收益,与政府支出相应增加所导致的经济效率下降所付出的代价是值得的。本文认为,这些观点大多是被误导的。只关注政府支出与私营部门支出的边际效益,有充分的理由得出结论,许多旨在减少不平等的政府支出是合理的,因为它们提高了整体效率,即使它们也减少了不平等。因为关于效率的争论直接解决了对再分配计划的约束的担忧,所以从社会政策的角度来看,把减少不平等看作是对效率损失的权衡,而效率损失本来是值得的。相反,改革者应该以他们自己的方式与经济效率的支持者接触。在提出这一论点时,本文还提出了“预算政策内生性”的概念,即各种计划的可承受性或不可承受性必须考虑当前支出对未来财富的分配和分配效应,因为当前项目的收入可能在未来增加。如果当前支出提高了配置效率,那么今天只能通过借款来提供资金的项目,将为未来偿还负担相对较轻的项目创造条件。
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
The Welfare Loss of Subsidies in Global Electricity Markets SNAP Take-Up and Transaction Costs: An Analysis Using the Food Security Survey Fiscal Federalism and the Budget Impacts of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion Inequality and Spending Policy Solidarity through Redistribution and Insurance of Incomes: The EU As Support, Guide, Guarantor or Provider?
×
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