ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)最新文献

The Welfare Loss of Subsidies in Global Electricity Markets 全球电力市场补贴的福利损失

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2020-08-20 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3679848

Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Nima Rafizadeh

{"title":"The Welfare Loss of Subsidies in Global Electricity Markets","authors":"Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Nima Rafizadeh","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3679848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3679848","url":null,"abstract":"Subsidies induce a market inefficiency by creating a deadweight loss since supply and demand are out of equilibrium. In 2016, electricity subsidies were the largest component of the total global energy subsides, with an estimated 128 billion USD out of 287 billion USD. Electricity generation is also directly responsible for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. Under baseline assumptions about supply and demand elasticities and employing the latest available data, we first estimate the welfare loss of global electricity subsidies and then estimate the global environmental costs imposed by electricity consumption. We find that the total annual deadweight loss worldwide in 2016 was 12.4 billion USD. Incorporating external costs stemming from excessive consumption, which is a result of prices that are less than the private marginal cost, leads to a total annual welfare loss of 43.2 billion USD. This number accounts for 4.5% of the total electricity market value in electricity-subsidizing countries. Furthermore, we estimate that the worldwide electricity consumption imposes environmental costs of at least 652.8 billion USD annually; thus, the total annual costs in the global electricity markets are nearly 700 billion USD.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127481857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

SNAP Take-Up and Transaction Costs: An Analysis Using the Food Security Survey SNAP吸收与交易成本:基于粮食安全调查的分析

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2020-06-26 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3305961

Jon Murphy

引用次数: 1

Fiscal Federalism and the Budget Impacts of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion 财政联邦制和《平价医疗法案》医疗补助扩张的预算影响

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.3386/w26862

J. Gruber, B. Sommers

{"title":"Fiscal Federalism and the Budget Impacts of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion","authors":"J. Gruber, B. Sommers","doi":"10.3386/w26862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/w26862","url":null,"abstract":"Medicaid’s federal-state matching system of financing is the nation’s largest example of fiscal federalism. Using generous federal subsidies, the Affordable Care Act incentivized states to expand Medicaid, which became a state option in the aftermath of a 2012 Supreme Court ruling. As of early 2020, 14 states had not yet expanded, with concerns over state budgetary effects described as a key barrier. We use an event-study approach to analyze state budget data from 2010-2018 and assess the effects of state Medicaid expansion decisions. We find that Medicaid expansion increased total spending in expansion states by 6% to 9%, compared to non-expansion states. By source of funds, federal spending via the states increased by 10% in the first year of Medicaid expansion, rising to 27% in 2018. Changes in spending from state funding were modest and non-significant, with less than a 1% change from baseline annually in the most recent years, 2017 and 2018. Meanwhile, we find no evidence that increased Medicaid spending from expansion produced any reductions in spending on education, corrections, transportation, or public assistance. Changes in Medicaid spending tracked closely with the baseline pre-ACA (2013) uninsured rate in each states, with expansion leading to roughly $2680 in added annual spending per uninsured adult. As a result, we estimate states that didn’t expand Medicaid passed up $43 billion in federally-subsidized program funds in 2018. Finally, state projections in the aggregate were reasonably accurate, with expansion states projecting average Medicaid spending from 2014-2018 within 2 percent of the actual amounts, and in fact overestimating Medicaid spending in most years.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127121751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 11

Inequality and Spending Policy 不平等与支出政策

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2020-02-15 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3538799

D. Hasen

{"title":"Inequality and Spending Policy","authors":"D. Hasen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3538799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3538799","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129009258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Solidarity through Redistribution and Insurance of Incomes: The EU As Support, Guide, Guarantor or Provider? 通过收入再分配和保险实现团结:欧盟是支持、指导、担保人还是提供者?

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2020-02-03 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3530876

Frank Vandenbroucke

{"title":"Solidarity through Redistribution and Insurance of Incomes: The EU As Support, Guide, Guarantor or Provider?","authors":"Frank Vandenbroucke","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3530876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3530876","url":null,"abstract":"Income redistribution and insurance are core functions of welfare states. What role should the EU play in this domain? I examine the purchase of normative theorizing on social justice on this question, building on the contrast between three models of EU involvement: the EU as Support, which implies the sharing of resources through intergovernmental transfers; the EU as Provider, which implies EU cross-border transfers towards individual citizens; the EU as Guide or Guarantor, which implies that the EU formulates normative policy ideals. \u0000 \u0000I review different normative accounts of justice for the EU (Ronzoni, Viehoff, Sangiovanni, Van Parijs), and how they bear on the choice between these models of EU involvement in welfare state solidarity. These accounts evolve between two extreme positions. On the one hand, an account based on supranational justice as ‘background justice for nation states’ implies that the EU should be a mere instrument in the hands of its member states. The opposite extreme position is that EU should be a laboratory for international distributive justice, whereby national welfare states are demoted to the toolbox of instruments. I argue that an account of justice for the EU must search for a middle ground, whereby neither the national welfare states nor the EU are demoted to mere instruments. \u0000 \u0000I conclude that the EU should support the member states’ welfare states in some of their key functions, on the basis of common social standards and in pursuit of upward convergence. Such a ‘Social Union’ would be a Support, Guide and Guarantor, both in the realm of insurance and redistribution. Through the establishment of interstate insurance, it would be a true ‘insurance union’, but, from the point of view of individual citizens, it would not become a direct Provider of insurance. It would engage in interstate redistribution, but not in interpersonal cross-border redistribution.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130795201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 10

Effects of Scaling Up Private School Choice Programs on Public School Students 扩大私立学校选择计划对公立学校学生的影响

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2020-02-01 DOI: 10.3386/w26758

David N. Figlio, Cassandra M. D. Hart, Krzysztof Karbownik

引用次数: 12

Does a General Theory of Welfare Institutions Explain the Expansion of Social Assistance in Low and Middle Income Countries? 福利制度的一般理论能解释中低收入国家社会救助的扩张吗?

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2019-11-15 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3652255

A. Barrientos

引用次数: 1

Does HUD Overpay for Voucher Units, and Will SAFMRs Reduce the Overpayment? 住房和城市发展部是否为代金券单位支付了过高的费用?

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2019-07-10 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3427803

E. Olsen

{"title":"Does HUD Overpay for Voucher Units, and Will SAFMRs Reduce the Overpayment?","authors":"E. Olsen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3427803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3427803","url":null,"abstract":"Small Area Fair Market Rents is an important reform of HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program. One argument for them is that they would reduce overpayment for voucher units in low-rent neighborhoods. This leads to the belief that the benefits of SAFMRs can be funded largely by reductions in landlord profits rather than by losses to voucher recipients who remain in low-rent areas. The usual theoretical argument that has led many to believe that voucher units are overpriced focuses on one implication of one feature of the Housing Choice Voucher program. This article provides a more comprehensive theoretical analysis that leads to the conclusion that the worst voucher units and those in the worst neighborhoods will usually rent for more than the mean market rent of identical units, and the best units in the best neighborhoods will rent for less than this amount. The debate over this matter has ignored the bulk of the available evidence. This article summarizes and assesses the data, methods, and results of the major studies. The evidence is consistent with the general pattern predicted by the comprehensive theoretical analysis but also with an alternative explanation that challenges its interpretation as overpayments and underpayments for voucher units. The mix of units with estimated overpayments and underpayments varies across studies, but the weight of the evidence is that the aggregate differences are modest. Finally, the evidence available indicates that SAFMRs will decrease the rents paid for voucher units with any specified set of characteristics in the worst neighborhoods and will increase the rents of such units in the best neighborhoods.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134355515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

The Intergenerational Transmission of Welfare Dependency 福利依赖的代际传递

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3237303

Monique de Haan, R. Schreiner

{"title":"The Intergenerational Transmission of Welfare Dependency","authors":"Monique de Haan, R. Schreiner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3237303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3237303","url":null,"abstract":"There is a strong intergenerational correlation in welfare participation, but this does not imply that parental welfare receipt induces child receipt. While there are a few quasi-experimental studies that provide estimates of the causal effect of parental welfare participation for children from marginal welfare participants, we know very little about intergenerational spillovers of welfare participation onto the children of average welfare participants. By combining rich administrative data from Norway with weak mean-monotonicity assumptions, we estimate nonparametric bounds around the average causal effect of parental welfare participation on childrenâ€™s welfare participation in the general population, as well as the average causal effect for children growing up in welfare-dependent families. We find that these average causal effects are considerably lower than the intergenerational correlation in welfare participation, and substantially below available local average treatment effect estimates in the literatu . We further find important differences between intergenerational spillovers of disability insurance and intergenerational spillovers of financial assistance, a traditional means-tested welfare program.","PeriodicalId":196905,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128968600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

The Effects of Universal Public Childcare Provision on Cases of Child Neglect and Abuse 普遍公共托儿服务对儿童忽视和虐待案件的影响

ERN: Government Expenditures & Welfare Programs (Topic) Pub Date : 2018-07-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3234210

Malte Sandner, Stephan L. Thomsen

引用次数: 5