反思福利国家

IF 6.6 1区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Econometrica Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.3982/ECTA19921
Nezih Guner, Remzi Kaygusuz, Gustavo Ventura
{"title":"反思福利国家","authors":"Nezih Guner,&nbsp;Remzi Kaygusuz,&nbsp;Gustavo Ventura","doi":"10.3982/ECTA19921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The United States spends significant amounts on non-medical transfers for its working-age population in a wide range of programs that support low- and middle-income households. How valuable are these programs for U.S. households? Are there simpler, welfare-improving ways to transfer resources that are supported by a majority? What are the macroeconomic effects of such alternatives? We answer these questions in an equilibrium, life-cycle model with single and married households who face idiosyncratic productivity risk, in the presence of costly children and potential skill losses of females associated with non-participation. Our findings show that a potential revenue-neutral elimination of the welfare state generates large welfare losses in the aggregate, although most households support the move as losses are concentrated among a small group. We find that a <i>Universal Basic Income</i> program does not improve upon the current system. If, instead, per-person transfers are implemented alongside a proportional tax, a <i>Negative Income Tax</i> experiment, it becomes feasible to improve upon the current system. Providing per-person transfers to all households is costly, and reducing tax distortions helps to provide for resources to expand redistribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":50556,"journal":{"name":"Econometrica","volume":"91 6","pages":"2261-2294"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking the Welfare State\",\"authors\":\"Nezih Guner,&nbsp;Remzi Kaygusuz,&nbsp;Gustavo Ventura\",\"doi\":\"10.3982/ECTA19921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The United States spends significant amounts on non-medical transfers for its working-age population in a wide range of programs that support low- and middle-income households. How valuable are these programs for U.S. households? Are there simpler, welfare-improving ways to transfer resources that are supported by a majority? What are the macroeconomic effects of such alternatives? We answer these questions in an equilibrium, life-cycle model with single and married households who face idiosyncratic productivity risk, in the presence of costly children and potential skill losses of females associated with non-participation. Our findings show that a potential revenue-neutral elimination of the welfare state generates large welfare losses in the aggregate, although most households support the move as losses are concentrated among a small group. We find that a <i>Universal Basic Income</i> program does not improve upon the current system. If, instead, per-person transfers are implemented alongside a proportional tax, a <i>Negative Income Tax</i> experiment, it becomes feasible to improve upon the current system. Providing per-person transfers to all households is costly, and reducing tax distortions helps to provide for resources to expand redistribution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometrica\",\"volume\":\"91 6\",\"pages\":\"2261-2294\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometrica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/ECTA19921\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometrica","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/ECTA19921","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

美国在一系列支持中低收入家庭的计划中,为其劳动适龄人口的非医疗转移支付花费了大量资金。这些计划对美国家庭有多大价值?是否有更简单的、改善福利的资源转移方式得到大多数人的支持?这些替代方案的宏观经济效果如何?我们在一个均衡的生命周期模型中回答了这些问题,模型中的单身家庭和已婚家庭面临着特异性的生产率风险,同时还存在着昂贵的子女费用以及女性因不参与而造成的潜在技能损失。我们的研究结果表明,如果取消福利国家,尽管大多数家庭支持这一举措,但由于损失集中在一小部分人身上,因此潜在的不增加收入的福利国家在总体上会产生巨大的福利损失。我们发现,全民基本收入计划并不能改善目前的制度。相反,如果在按比例征税(即负所得税实验)的同时实施按人转移支付,那么改进现行制度就变得可行了。向所有家庭提供按人转移支付的成本很高,而减少税收扭曲有助于为扩大再分配提供资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking the Welfare State

The United States spends significant amounts on non-medical transfers for its working-age population in a wide range of programs that support low- and middle-income households. How valuable are these programs for U.S. households? Are there simpler, welfare-improving ways to transfer resources that are supported by a majority? What are the macroeconomic effects of such alternatives? We answer these questions in an equilibrium, life-cycle model with single and married households who face idiosyncratic productivity risk, in the presence of costly children and potential skill losses of females associated with non-participation. Our findings show that a potential revenue-neutral elimination of the welfare state generates large welfare losses in the aggregate, although most households support the move as losses are concentrated among a small group. We find that a Universal Basic Income program does not improve upon the current system. If, instead, per-person transfers are implemented alongside a proportional tax, a Negative Income Tax experiment, it becomes feasible to improve upon the current system. Providing per-person transfers to all households is costly, and reducing tax distortions helps to provide for resources to expand redistribution.

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
Econometrica
Econometrica 社会科学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
75
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Econometrica publishes original articles in all branches of economics - theoretical and empirical, abstract and applied, providing wide-ranging coverage across the subject area. It promotes studies that aim at the unification of the theoretical-quantitative and the empirical-quantitative approach to economic problems and that are penetrated by constructive and rigorous thinking. It explores a unique range of topics each year - from the frontier of theoretical developments in many new and important areas, to research on current and applied economic problems, to methodologically innovative, theoretical and applied studies in econometrics. Econometrica maintains a long tradition that submitted articles are refereed carefully and that detailed and thoughtful referee reports are provided to the author as an aid to scientific research, thus ensuring the high calibre of papers found in Econometrica. An international board of editors, together with the referees it has selected, has succeeded in substantially reducing editorial turnaround time, thereby encouraging submissions of the highest quality. We strongly encourage recent Ph. D. graduates to submit their work to Econometrica. Our policy is to take into account the fact that recent graduates are less experienced in the process of writing and submitting papers.
×
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