衡量福利的新方法

IF 2.2 3区 经济学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Fiscal Studies Pub Date : 2023-08-24 DOI:10.1111/1475-5890.12333
Kristen Cooper, Mark Fabian, Christian Krekel
{"title":"衡量福利的新方法","authors":"Kristen Cooper,&nbsp;Mark Fabian,&nbsp;Christian Krekel","doi":"10.1111/1475-5890.12333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Economics has traditionally understood ‘welfare’ (what makes a life go well) as the satisfaction of preference. This conceptualisation of welfare is typically measured using revealed preferences, proxied through income and prices or stated in willingness-to-pay surveys. Recent decades have seen growing challenges to this paradigm. The climate crisis, among other phenomena, has called into question whether income and price data effectively proxy preferences, and willingness-to-pay surveys continue to struggle with accurately pricing important items such as biodiversity, digital goods, privacy and social connections. Preference satisfaction as a welfare criterion has also been challenged conceptually by psychologists and scholars working in the development space, among others. In this article, we review recent innovations in alternate ways of conceptualising and measuring welfare for the purposes of economic welfare analysis. We focus on using stated preferences over aspects of well-being, life-satisfaction scales and the WELLBY approach, and well-being frameworks such as Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index. While not without weaknesses, these approaches also have marked strengths relative to the traditional approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":51602,"journal":{"name":"Fiscal Studies","volume":"44 2","pages":"123-135"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-5890.12333","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New approaches to measuring welfare\",\"authors\":\"Kristen Cooper,&nbsp;Mark Fabian,&nbsp;Christian Krekel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1475-5890.12333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Economics has traditionally understood ‘welfare’ (what makes a life go well) as the satisfaction of preference. This conceptualisation of welfare is typically measured using revealed preferences, proxied through income and prices or stated in willingness-to-pay surveys. Recent decades have seen growing challenges to this paradigm. The climate crisis, among other phenomena, has called into question whether income and price data effectively proxy preferences, and willingness-to-pay surveys continue to struggle with accurately pricing important items such as biodiversity, digital goods, privacy and social connections. Preference satisfaction as a welfare criterion has also been challenged conceptually by psychologists and scholars working in the development space, among others. In this article, we review recent innovations in alternate ways of conceptualising and measuring welfare for the purposes of economic welfare analysis. We focus on using stated preferences over aspects of well-being, life-satisfaction scales and the WELLBY approach, and well-being frameworks such as Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index. While not without weaknesses, these approaches also have marked strengths relative to the traditional approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fiscal Studies\",\"volume\":\"44 2\",\"pages\":\"123-135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-5890.12333\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fiscal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-5890.12333\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fiscal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-5890.12333","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

经济学传统上将“福利”(使生活顺利的因素)理解为偏好的满足。这种福利概念通常是通过揭示的偏好来衡量的,通过收入和价格来代表,或者在支付意愿调查中说明。近几十年来,这一模式面临越来越多的挑战。气候危机等现象让人怀疑收入和价格数据是否有效地代表了偏好,而支付意愿调查仍在努力准确定价生物多样性、数字商品、隐私和社会关系等重要项目。作为福利标准的偏好满意度在概念上也受到了从事发展领域工作的心理学家和学者等的挑战。在这篇文章中,我们回顾了最近在概念化和衡量福利以进行经济福利分析方面的创新。我们专注于在幸福、生活满意度量表和WELLBY方法以及不丹国民幸福指数等幸福框架方面使用既定偏好。虽然这些方法并非没有弱点,但与传统方法相比,它们也有显著的优势。
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
New approaches to measuring welfare

Economics has traditionally understood ‘welfare’ (what makes a life go well) as the satisfaction of preference. This conceptualisation of welfare is typically measured using revealed preferences, proxied through income and prices or stated in willingness-to-pay surveys. Recent decades have seen growing challenges to this paradigm. The climate crisis, among other phenomena, has called into question whether income and price data effectively proxy preferences, and willingness-to-pay surveys continue to struggle with accurately pricing important items such as biodiversity, digital goods, privacy and social connections. Preference satisfaction as a welfare criterion has also been challenged conceptually by psychologists and scholars working in the development space, among others. In this article, we review recent innovations in alternate ways of conceptualising and measuring welfare for the purposes of economic welfare analysis. We focus on using stated preferences over aspects of well-being, life-satisfaction scales and the WELLBY approach, and well-being frameworks such as Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index. While not without weaknesses, these approaches also have marked strengths relative to the traditional approach.

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
Fiscal Studies
Fiscal Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
1.40%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Institute for Fiscal Studies publishes the journal Fiscal Studies, which serves as a bridge between academic research and policy. This esteemed journal, established in 1979, has gained global recognition for its publication of high-quality and original research papers. The articles, authored by prominent academics, policymakers, and practitioners, are presented in an accessible format, ensuring a broad international readership.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Equally poorer: inequality and the Greek debt crisis Did Belgium withstand the storm of rising inequalities? Income inequality in Belgium, 1985–2020 What lies behind France's low level of income inequality?
×
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