评估社会项目的三个标准

IF 2 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
J. García, J. Heckman
{"title":"评估社会项目的三个标准","authors":"J. García, J. Heckman","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"97 1","pages":"281 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three Criteria for Evaluating Social Programs\",\"authors\":\"J. García, J. Heckman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bca.2022.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis\",\"volume\":\"97 1\",\"pages\":\"281 - 286\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.18\",\"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.2022.18","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: 0

摘要

本文考察了用于评估社会项目成本和收益的三个标准的经济基础。一些标准没有考虑项目的规模,也没有考虑与扩大或缩小政府总预算的项目相关的成本。最近增加的评价标准清单- -公共资金的边际价值- -并没有采用社会最优的观点。它在不考虑提高预算的社会成本的情况下,以预先确定的总预算来评价支出的最优性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three Criteria for Evaluating Social Programs
Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.
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
×
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