辩论结论性意见

R. Lipsey
{"title":"辩论结论性意见","authors":"R. Lipsey","doi":"10.1111/1468-0106.12223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this final piece to the symposium for a special issue of Pacific Economic Review on the theories and applications of second‐best and third‐best theories, Richard Lipsey and Yew‐Kwang Ng provide their final comments to the debate. Several issues of agreement and disagreement are discussed. Most importantly, while both agree on the formal correctness of both the second‐best and third‐best theories, Lipsey believes the main proposition of third‐best theory (following the first‐best rules under Informational Poverty) is applicable only to a situation (status quo) where the first‐best rule (such as taxing a pollution at the marginal damage of $N) is already being followed; Ng regards it as applicable whether or not the first‐best rule is currently being followed. This also partly explains their difference on the practical policy relevance and the importance of that theory.","PeriodicalId":424970,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Markets Economics: Industrial Policy & Regulation eJournal","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concluding Comments to the Debate\",\"authors\":\"R. Lipsey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-0106.12223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this final piece to the symposium for a special issue of Pacific Economic Review on the theories and applications of second‐best and third‐best theories, Richard Lipsey and Yew‐Kwang Ng provide their final comments to the debate. Several issues of agreement and disagreement are discussed. Most importantly, while both agree on the formal correctness of both the second‐best and third‐best theories, Lipsey believes the main proposition of third‐best theory (following the first‐best rules under Informational Poverty) is applicable only to a situation (status quo) where the first‐best rule (such as taxing a pollution at the marginal damage of $N) is already being followed; Ng regards it as applicable whether or not the first‐best rule is currently being followed. This also partly explains their difference on the practical policy relevance and the importance of that theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":424970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emerging Markets Economics: Industrial Policy & Regulation eJournal\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emerging Markets Economics: Industrial Policy & Regulation eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0106.12223\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Markets Economics: Industrial Policy & Regulation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0106.12223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在《太平洋经济评论》关于第二和第三最佳理论的理论和应用的专题讨论会的最后一篇文章中,理查德·利普西和吴耀光对这场辩论进行了最后的评论。讨论了同意和不同意的几个问题。最重要的是,虽然两者都同意第二最佳和第三最佳理论的形式正确性,但Lipsey认为第三最佳理论的主要命题(遵循信息贫困下的第一最佳规则)仅适用于已经遵循第一最佳规则(例如以N美元的边际损害征税)的情况(现状);吴恩达认为,无论目前是否遵循第一最佳规则,它都是适用的。这也在一定程度上解释了他们在实际政策相关性和该理论重要性方面的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Concluding Comments to the Debate
In this final piece to the symposium for a special issue of Pacific Economic Review on the theories and applications of second‐best and third‐best theories, Richard Lipsey and Yew‐Kwang Ng provide their final comments to the debate. Several issues of agreement and disagreement are discussed. Most importantly, while both agree on the formal correctness of both the second‐best and third‐best theories, Lipsey believes the main proposition of third‐best theory (following the first‐best rules under Informational Poverty) is applicable only to a situation (status quo) where the first‐best rule (such as taxing a pollution at the marginal damage of $N) is already being followed; Ng regards it as applicable whether or not the first‐best rule is currently being followed. This also partly explains their difference on the practical policy relevance and the importance of that theory.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信