Unified Welfare Analysis of Government Policies *

Authored by academic.oup.com and submitted by smurfyjenkins

We conduct a comparative welfare analysis of 133 historical policy changes over the past half-century in the United States, focusing on policies in social insurance, education and job training, taxes and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers. For each policy, we use existing causal estimates to calculate both the benefit that each policy provides its recipients (measured as their willingness to pay) and the policy’s net cost, inclusive of long-term impacts on the government’s budget. We divide the willingness to pay by the net cost to the government to form each policy’s Marginal Value of Public Funds, or its “MVPF”. Comparing MVPFs across policies provides a unified method of assessing their impact on social welfare. Our results suggest that direct investments in low-income children’s health and education have historically had the highest MVPFs, on average exceeding 5. Many such policies have paid for themselves as governments recouped the cost of their initial expenditures through additional taxes collected and reduced transfers. We find large MVPFs for education and health policies amongst children of all ages, rather than observing diminishing marginal returns throughout childhood. We find smaller MVPFs for policies targeting adults, generally between 0.5 and 2. Expenditures on adults have exceeded this MVPF range in particular if they induced large spillovers on children. We relate our estimates to existing theories of optimal government policy and we discuss how the MVPF provides lessons for the design of future research.

bplturner on March 19th, 2020 at 05:07 UTC »

Are you suggesting that we benefit from educating and protecting our society's children? I dare say that's preposterous.

Secthian on March 19th, 2020 at 05:04 UTC »

I am proof positive that this kind of investment works.

For a variety of complex reasons out of my very small family's control I grew up very poor. We're talking subsistence-level income based entirely on social assistance, well below the poverty line. I do have an issue that the government provided us significantly less than the same government's acknowledged poverty line (about 30% less), but I suppose that is a more complicated argument.

Nonetheless, thanks to the support and the generosity of the state I flourished. The state's return on investment is already epic. In my very short career I have already paid back more in property, income, and sales taxes than the government gave me and my family (combined) growing up as a child. I suppose I might be an exception given a relatively high income level in the profession that I worked towards and have succeeded in, but the state made that opportunity possible. I am now growing my own family, and I help my family members and others around me. I always give a little extra for people who care and do a good job because I am reminded of how much an extra dollar or two meant to me growing up.

At the end of the day, my government will make an absolute killing on investing relatively little in me over a long period of time. I wish a lot of things were different, including the incessant bullying that I faced as a result of being poor (I was the only kid in grade school with the sewed-on knee patches made from old clothes because we couldn't afford new sweat pants), but the results of these kinds of studies are a no-brainer for me. We need to invest in our future.

CaptainsLincolnLog on March 19th, 2020 at 01:57 UTC »

See, but you won’t see results on that for twenty-five years, which is synonymous with “never” for most people. We can punish people for being poor right now, so that’s what we’re going to do.