Three Criteria for Evaluating Social Programs

IF 2 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1017/bca.2022.18
J. García, J. Heckman
{"title":"Three Criteria for Evaluating Social Programs","authors":"J. García, J. Heckman","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"97 1","pages":"281 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.18","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.
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
评估社会项目的三个标准
本文考察了用于评估社会项目成本和收益的三个标准的经济基础。一些标准没有考虑项目的规模,也没有考虑与扩大或缩小政府总预算的项目相关的成本。最近增加的评价标准清单- -公共资金的边际价值- -并没有采用社会最优的观点。它在不考虑提高预算的社会成本的情况下,以预先确定的总预算来评价支出的最优性。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
An Investment Case for the Scale-up and Use of Insecticide-Treated Nets Halfway into the SDG Targets Sustainable Development Goal Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis Using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics Model–CORRIGENDUM Best Investments in Chronic, Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control in Low- and Lower–Middle-Income Countries – CORRIGENDUM Save 4.2 Million Lives and Generate $1.1 Trillion in Economic Benefits for Only $41 Billion: Introduction to the Special Issue on the Most Efficient Policies for the Sustainable Development Goals Cost–Benefit Analysis of an “Average” Professional Sports Team or Stadium in the United States
×
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