现代视角下的格莱斯顿金融学:财政宪政主义还是供给侧经济学?

C. Leathers
{"title":"现代视角下的格莱斯顿金融学:财政宪政主义还是供给侧经济学?","authors":"C. Leathers","doi":"10.1017/S1042771600005792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two new schools of thought have recently emerged in public finance: fiscal constitutionalism, founded on the theory of Leviathan government, and supplyside economics, popularly perceived in terms of the Laffer curve. Comments by several writers have raised the possibility of conflicts betweens the tax principles of the two schools. In particular, both Brunner (1982) and Reynolds (1982) criticized supply-siders for emphasizing tax cuts to increase public revenues and ignoring the importance of placing limits on governmental growth. In addition, McKenzie's description of “constitutional economics” as an intellectual movement that “promises far more radical reforms of government than those ever attempted by Keynesian and supply-side economics” (1984, p. 1) indicates that “constitutional” and supply-side economics are different. Yet, his discussion of the Laffer curve and supply-side tax cuts from a constitutional economist's perspective leaves the distinct impression that the two schools are in agreement on tax policy positions.","PeriodicalId":123974,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Society Bulletin","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gladstonian Finance in Modern Light: Fiscal Constitutionalism or Supply-Side Economics?\",\"authors\":\"C. Leathers\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1042771600005792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two new schools of thought have recently emerged in public finance: fiscal constitutionalism, founded on the theory of Leviathan government, and supplyside economics, popularly perceived in terms of the Laffer curve. Comments by several writers have raised the possibility of conflicts betweens the tax principles of the two schools. In particular, both Brunner (1982) and Reynolds (1982) criticized supply-siders for emphasizing tax cuts to increase public revenues and ignoring the importance of placing limits on governmental growth. In addition, McKenzie's description of “constitutional economics” as an intellectual movement that “promises far more radical reforms of government than those ever attempted by Keynesian and supply-side economics” (1984, p. 1) indicates that “constitutional” and supply-side economics are different. Yet, his discussion of the Laffer curve and supply-side tax cuts from a constitutional economist's perspective leaves the distinct impression that the two schools are in agreement on tax policy positions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":123974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Economics Society Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1989-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Economics Society Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1042771600005792\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Economics Society Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1042771600005792","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近在公共财政领域出现了两种新的思想流派:一种是建立在利维坦政府理论基础上的财政宪政主义,另一种是通常用拉弗曲线来理解的供给经济学。几位作家的评论提出了两派税收原则之间存在冲突的可能性。特别是,Brunner(1982)和Reynolds(1982)都批评供给学派强调减税以增加公共收入,而忽视了限制政府增长的重要性。此外,麦肯齐将“宪政经济学”描述为一种智力运动,“承诺对政府进行比凯恩斯主义和供给侧经济学所尝试的更为激进的改革”(1984年,第1页),这表明“宪政”和供给侧经济学是不同的。然而,他从宪政经济学家的角度对拉弗曲线和供给侧减税的讨论给人留下了明显的印象,即两派在税收政策立场上是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gladstonian Finance in Modern Light: Fiscal Constitutionalism or Supply-Side Economics?
Two new schools of thought have recently emerged in public finance: fiscal constitutionalism, founded on the theory of Leviathan government, and supplyside economics, popularly perceived in terms of the Laffer curve. Comments by several writers have raised the possibility of conflicts betweens the tax principles of the two schools. In particular, both Brunner (1982) and Reynolds (1982) criticized supply-siders for emphasizing tax cuts to increase public revenues and ignoring the importance of placing limits on governmental growth. In addition, McKenzie's description of “constitutional economics” as an intellectual movement that “promises far more radical reforms of government than those ever attempted by Keynesian and supply-side economics” (1984, p. 1) indicates that “constitutional” and supply-side economics are different. Yet, his discussion of the Laffer curve and supply-side tax cuts from a constitutional economist's perspective leaves the distinct impression that the two schools are in agreement on tax policy positions.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信