无道歉的效率:边际超额税负与收益成本分析中的分配影响

IF 2 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis Pub Date : 2020-09-28 DOI:10.1017/bca.2020.18
A. Boardman, D. Greenberg, A. Vining, D. Weimer
{"title":"无道歉的效率:边际超额税负与收益成本分析中的分配影响","authors":"A. Boardman, D. Greenberg, A. Vining, D. Weimer","doi":"10.1017/bca.2020.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Some issues in the application of benefit–cost analysis (BCA) remain contentious. Although a strong conceptual case can be made for taking account of the marginal excess tax burden (METB) in conducting BCAs, it is usually excluded. Although a strong conceptual case can be made that BCA should not include distributional values, some analysts continue to advocate doing so. We discuss the cases for inclusion of the METB and the exclusion of distributional weights from what we refer to as “core” BCA, which we argue should be preserved as a protocol for assessing allocative efficiency. These issues are topical because a recent article in this journal recommends ignoring the METB on the grounds that desirable distributional effects offset its cost. We challenge the logic of this article and explain why it may encourage inefficient policies.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"35 1","pages":"457 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency without Apology: Consideration of the Marginal Excess Tax Burden and Distributional Impacts in Benefit–Cost Analysis\",\"authors\":\"A. Boardman, D. Greenberg, A. Vining, D. Weimer\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bca.2020.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Some issues in the application of benefit–cost analysis (BCA) remain contentious. Although a strong conceptual case can be made for taking account of the marginal excess tax burden (METB) in conducting BCAs, it is usually excluded. Although a strong conceptual case can be made that BCA should not include distributional values, some analysts continue to advocate doing so. We discuss the cases for inclusion of the METB and the exclusion of distributional weights from what we refer to as “core” BCA, which we argue should be preserved as a protocol for assessing allocative efficiency. These issues are topical because a recent article in this journal recommends ignoring the METB on the grounds that desirable distributional effects offset its cost. We challenge the logic of this article and explain why it may encourage inefficient policies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"457 - 478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2020.18\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2020.18","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: 6

摘要

效益成本分析(BCA)在应用中的一些问题仍存在争议。虽然在进行bca时可以考虑边际超额税负(METB),但它通常被排除在外。尽管可以提出一个强有力的概念案例,即BCA不应该包括分配值,但一些分析师继续主张这样做。我们讨论了包括METB和从我们称之为“核心”BCA中排除分配权重的情况,我们认为应该将其保留为评估分配效率的协议。这些问题之所以成为热门话题,是因为本刊最近的一篇文章建议忽略METB,理由是理想的分配效应抵消了其成本。我们对这篇文章的逻辑提出质疑,并解释为什么它可能鼓励低效的政策。
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
Efficiency without Apology: Consideration of the Marginal Excess Tax Burden and Distributional Impacts in Benefit–Cost Analysis
Abstract Some issues in the application of benefit–cost analysis (BCA) remain contentious. Although a strong conceptual case can be made for taking account of the marginal excess tax burden (METB) in conducting BCAs, it is usually excluded. Although a strong conceptual case can be made that BCA should not include distributional values, some analysts continue to advocate doing so. We discuss the cases for inclusion of the METB and the exclusion of distributional weights from what we refer to as “core” BCA, which we argue should be preserved as a protocol for assessing allocative efficiency. These issues are topical because a recent article in this journal recommends ignoring the METB on the grounds that desirable distributional effects offset its cost. We challenge the logic of this article and explain why it may encourage inefficient policies.
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
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