为什么教育券失败?

G. Glomm, P. Bearse, Buly A. Cardak, B. Ravikumar
{"title":"为什么教育券失败?","authors":"G. Glomm, P. Bearse, Buly A. Cardak, B. Ravikumar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1456391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine quantitatively why uniform vouchers have repeatedly suffered electoral defeats against the current system where public and private schools coexist. We argue that the topping-up option available under uniform vouchers is not suficiently valuable for the poorer households to prefer the uniform vouchers to the current mix of public and private education. We then develop a model of publicly funded means-tested education vouchers where the voucher received by each household is a linearly decreasing function of income. Public policy, which is determined by majority voting, consists of two dimensions: the overall funding level (or the tax rate) and the slope of the means testing function. We solve the model when the political decisions are sequential-households vote first on the tax rate and then on the extent of means testing. We establish that a majority voting equilibrium exists. We show that the means-tested voucher regime is majority preferred to the status-quo. These results are robust to alternative preference parameters, income distribution parameters and voter turnout.","PeriodicalId":428258,"journal":{"name":"CAEPR: Center for Applied Economics & Policy Research Working Paper Series","volume":"371 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Do Education Vouchers Fail?\",\"authors\":\"G. Glomm, P. Bearse, Buly A. Cardak, B. Ravikumar\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1456391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examine quantitatively why uniform vouchers have repeatedly suffered electoral defeats against the current system where public and private schools coexist. We argue that the topping-up option available under uniform vouchers is not suficiently valuable for the poorer households to prefer the uniform vouchers to the current mix of public and private education. We then develop a model of publicly funded means-tested education vouchers where the voucher received by each household is a linearly decreasing function of income. Public policy, which is determined by majority voting, consists of two dimensions: the overall funding level (or the tax rate) and the slope of the means testing function. We solve the model when the political decisions are sequential-households vote first on the tax rate and then on the extent of means testing. We establish that a majority voting equilibrium exists. We show that the means-tested voucher regime is majority preferred to the status-quo. These results are robust to alternative preference parameters, income distribution parameters and voter turnout.\",\"PeriodicalId\":428258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CAEPR: Center for Applied Economics & Policy Research Working Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"371 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CAEPR: Center for Applied Economics & Policy Research Working Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1456391\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CAEPR: Center for Applied Economics & Policy Research Working Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1456391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

我们从数量上考察了为什么统一教育券在与目前公立和私立学校并存的制度相比一再遭受选举失败。我们认为,在统一教育券下提供的充值选项没有足够的价值,使较贫穷的家庭更喜欢统一教育券,而不是目前的公立和私立教育组合。然后,我们开发了一个公共资助的经经济状况调查的教育券模型,其中每个家庭收到的教育券是收入的线性递减函数。公共政策由多数投票决定,由两个维度组成:总体资金水平(或税率)和经济状况调查函数的斜率。当政治决策是顺序的——家庭首先投票决定税率,然后投票决定经济状况调查的范围——我们解决这个模型。我们建立了多数投票均衡的存在。我们表明,大多数人更喜欢经济状况调查券制度,而不是维持现状。这些结果对替代偏好参数、收入分配参数和选民投票率具有鲁棒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Why Do Education Vouchers Fail?
We examine quantitatively why uniform vouchers have repeatedly suffered electoral defeats against the current system where public and private schools coexist. We argue that the topping-up option available under uniform vouchers is not suficiently valuable for the poorer households to prefer the uniform vouchers to the current mix of public and private education. We then develop a model of publicly funded means-tested education vouchers where the voucher received by each household is a linearly decreasing function of income. Public policy, which is determined by majority voting, consists of two dimensions: the overall funding level (or the tax rate) and the slope of the means testing function. We solve the model when the political decisions are sequential-households vote first on the tax rate and then on the extent of means testing. We establish that a majority voting equilibrium exists. We show that the means-tested voucher regime is majority preferred to the status-quo. These results are robust to alternative preference parameters, income distribution parameters and voter turnout.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Timing of Redistribution Transfers and Labor Market Behavior of the Elderly in Developing Countries: Theory and Evidence from Vietnam Why Do Education Vouchers Fail? Exchange Rates, Oil Price Shocks, and Monetary Policy In an Economy with Traded and Non-Traded Goods How Should Monetary Policy Respond to Changes in the Relative Price of Oil? Considering Supply and Demand Shocks
×
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:604180095
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