The Experts below are selected from a list of 321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard R Geddes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social Welfare Analysis of investment public private partnership approaches for transportation projects
Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 2016Co-Authors: Omid M Rouhani, Richard R GeddesAbstract:This paper has two objectives: (i) to introduce a new approach in order to gain widespread support for road pricing; and (ii) to develop a detailed social Welfare Analysis for road pricing schemes. We first describe our novel approach that stimulates public support for road pricing, which we refer to as an investment public–private partnership, or IP3. This approach returns a significant portion of the economic value created by road pricing back to the citizens who own the newly priced facility. We then present a social Welfare framework that estimates the benefits and costs of using the IP3 approach on an urban transportation network. A P3 project’s impact on overall social Welfare provides a more comprehensive evaluation criterion than the often-used Value for Money (VfM) Analysis. Apart from several theoretical studies, a detailed social Welfare Analysis that includes all major P3 project stakeholders is absent from the literature. We use Fresno, California as our case study in order to conduct a Welfare Analysis on IP3s. Our results show that system-optimal tolling favors average users, but that government—and consequently taxpayers—should pay for costly tolling systems (negative profits). In contrast, unlimited profit-maximizing tolls raise substantial profits for government, for the infrastructure’s citizen-owners, and for the private sector, but the average user is worse off. From a social-Welfare perspective, one should search for a Pareto improvement under which all major stakeholders are better off. Our estimates indicate that a mixed public and private tolling scheme offers such an improvement.
-
Social Welfare Analysis of investment public–private partnership approaches for transportation projects
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2016Co-Authors: Omid M Rouhani, Richard R Geddes, H. Oliver Gao, Germà BelAbstract:This paper has two objectives: (i) to introduce a new approach in order to gain widespread support for road pricing; and (ii) to develop a detailed social Welfare Analysis for road pricing schemes. We first describe our novel approach that stimulates public support for road pricing, which we refer to as an investment public–private partnership, or IP3. This approach returns a significant portion of the economic value created by road pricing back to the citizens who own the newly priced facility. We then present a social Welfare framework that estimates the benefits and costs of using the IP3 approach on an urban transportation network. A P3 project’s impact on overall social Welfare provides a more comprehensive evaluation criterion than the often-used Value for Money (VfM) Analysis. Apart from several theoretical studies, a detailed social Welfare Analysis that includes all major P3 project stakeholders is absent from the literature. We use Fresno, California as our case study in order to conduct a Welfare Analysis on IP3s. Our results show that system-optimal tolling favors average users, but that government—and consequently taxpayers—should pay for costly tolling systems (negative profits). In contrast, unlimited profit-maximizing tolls raise substantial profits for government, for the infrastructure’s citizen-owners, and for the private sector, but the average user is worse off. From a social-Welfare perspective, one should search for a Pareto improvement under which all major stakeholders are better off. Our estimates indicate that a mixed public and private tolling scheme offers such an improvement.
Nathaniel Hendren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Welfare Analysis Meets Causal Inference
2020Co-Authors: Nathaniel HendrenAbstract:We describe a framework for empirical Welfare Analysis that uses the causal estimates of a policy’s impact on net government spending. This framework provides guidance for which causal effects are (and are not) needed for empirical Welfare Analysis of public policies.The key ingredient is the construction of each policy’s marginal value of public funds (MVPF). The MVPF is the ratio of beneficiaries’ willingness to pay for the policy to the net cost to the government. We discuss how the MVPF relates to “traditional” Welfare Analysis tools such as the marginal excess burden and marginal cost of public funds. We show how the MVPF can be used in practice by applying it to several canonical empirical applications from public finance, labor, development, trade, and industrial organization. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
-
A Unified Welfare Analysis of Government Policies*
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2020Co-Authors: Nathaniel Hendren, Ben Sprung-keyserAbstract:Abstract 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 the benefit that each policy provides its recipients (measured as their willingness to pay) and the policy’s net cost, inclusive of long-term effects 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 effect 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 the government recouped the cost of their initial expenditures through additional taxes collected and reduced transfers. We find large MVPFs for education and health policies among 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.
-
Welfare Analysis meets causal inference
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020Co-Authors: Amy Finkelstein, Nathaniel HendrenAbstract:We describe a framework for empirical Welfare Analysis that uses the causal estimates of a policy’s impact on net government spending. This framework provides guidance for which causal effects are (and are not) needed for empirical Welfare Analysis of public policies.The key ingredient is the construction of each policy’s marginal value of public funds (MVPF). The MVPF is the ratio of beneficiaries’ willingness to pay for the policy to the net cost to the government. We discuss how the MVPF relates to “traditional” Welfare Analysis tools such as the marginal excess burden and marginal cost of public funds. We show how the MVPF can be used in practice by applying it to several canonical empirical applications from public finance, labor, development, trade, and industrial organization.
-
A Unified Welfare Analysis of Government Policies
2019Co-Authors: Nathaniel Hendren, Ben Sprung-keyserAbstract: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.
Omid M Rouhani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social Welfare Analysis of investment public private partnership approaches for transportation projects
Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 2016Co-Authors: Omid M Rouhani, Richard R GeddesAbstract:This paper has two objectives: (i) to introduce a new approach in order to gain widespread support for road pricing; and (ii) to develop a detailed social Welfare Analysis for road pricing schemes. We first describe our novel approach that stimulates public support for road pricing, which we refer to as an investment public–private partnership, or IP3. This approach returns a significant portion of the economic value created by road pricing back to the citizens who own the newly priced facility. We then present a social Welfare framework that estimates the benefits and costs of using the IP3 approach on an urban transportation network. A P3 project’s impact on overall social Welfare provides a more comprehensive evaluation criterion than the often-used Value for Money (VfM) Analysis. Apart from several theoretical studies, a detailed social Welfare Analysis that includes all major P3 project stakeholders is absent from the literature. We use Fresno, California as our case study in order to conduct a Welfare Analysis on IP3s. Our results show that system-optimal tolling favors average users, but that government—and consequently taxpayers—should pay for costly tolling systems (negative profits). In contrast, unlimited profit-maximizing tolls raise substantial profits for government, for the infrastructure’s citizen-owners, and for the private sector, but the average user is worse off. From a social-Welfare perspective, one should search for a Pareto improvement under which all major stakeholders are better off. Our estimates indicate that a mixed public and private tolling scheme offers such an improvement.
-
Social Welfare Analysis of investment public–private partnership approaches for transportation projects
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2016Co-Authors: Omid M Rouhani, Richard R Geddes, H. Oliver Gao, Germà BelAbstract:This paper has two objectives: (i) to introduce a new approach in order to gain widespread support for road pricing; and (ii) to develop a detailed social Welfare Analysis for road pricing schemes. We first describe our novel approach that stimulates public support for road pricing, which we refer to as an investment public–private partnership, or IP3. This approach returns a significant portion of the economic value created by road pricing back to the citizens who own the newly priced facility. We then present a social Welfare framework that estimates the benefits and costs of using the IP3 approach on an urban transportation network. A P3 project’s impact on overall social Welfare provides a more comprehensive evaluation criterion than the often-used Value for Money (VfM) Analysis. Apart from several theoretical studies, a detailed social Welfare Analysis that includes all major P3 project stakeholders is absent from the literature. We use Fresno, California as our case study in order to conduct a Welfare Analysis on IP3s. Our results show that system-optimal tolling favors average users, but that government—and consequently taxpayers—should pay for costly tolling systems (negative profits). In contrast, unlimited profit-maximizing tolls raise substantial profits for government, for the infrastructure’s citizen-owners, and for the private sector, but the average user is worse off. From a social-Welfare perspective, one should search for a Pareto improvement under which all major stakeholders are better off. Our estimates indicate that a mixed public and private tolling scheme offers such an improvement.
Germà Bel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social Welfare Analysis of investment public–private partnership approaches for transportation projects
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2016Co-Authors: Omid M Rouhani, Richard R Geddes, H. Oliver Gao, Germà BelAbstract:This paper has two objectives: (i) to introduce a new approach in order to gain widespread support for road pricing; and (ii) to develop a detailed social Welfare Analysis for road pricing schemes. We first describe our novel approach that stimulates public support for road pricing, which we refer to as an investment public–private partnership, or IP3. This approach returns a significant portion of the economic value created by road pricing back to the citizens who own the newly priced facility. We then present a social Welfare framework that estimates the benefits and costs of using the IP3 approach on an urban transportation network. A P3 project’s impact on overall social Welfare provides a more comprehensive evaluation criterion than the often-used Value for Money (VfM) Analysis. Apart from several theoretical studies, a detailed social Welfare Analysis that includes all major P3 project stakeholders is absent from the literature. We use Fresno, California as our case study in order to conduct a Welfare Analysis on IP3s. Our results show that system-optimal tolling favors average users, but that government—and consequently taxpayers—should pay for costly tolling systems (negative profits). In contrast, unlimited profit-maximizing tolls raise substantial profits for government, for the infrastructure’s citizen-owners, and for the private sector, but the average user is worse off. From a social-Welfare perspective, one should search for a Pareto improvement under which all major stakeholders are better off. Our estimates indicate that a mixed public and private tolling scheme offers such an improvement.
Miriam Beblo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Welfare Analysis of a tax reform for Germany: a comparison of the unitary
2007Co-Authors: Denis Beningerfrancois Laisney, Miriam BebloAbstract:We compare results of a tax reform Analysis obtained with the collective and unitary models of household behaviour. We simulate real world micro-data by means of a collective approach, using a compound procedure of estimation and calibration based on the 1998 wave of the German socio-economic panel. We estimate a unitary model on this 'collective' data set. Investigating a move from joint to individual taxation on the basis of both models, we obtain important discrepancies between predicted adjustments to labour supply and distortions in the Welfare Analysis of the reform on the basis of unitary estimates.
-
Welfare Analysis of a tax reform for Germany: a comparison of the unitary and collective models of household labour supply
Journal of Population Economics, 2006Co-Authors: Denis Beninger, François Laisney, Miriam BebloAbstract:We compare results of a tax reform Analysis obtained with the collective and unitary models of household behaviour. We simulate real world micro-data by means of a collective approach, using a compound procedure of estimation and calibration based on the 1998 wave of the German socio-economic panel. We estimate a unitary model on this ‘collective’ data set. Investigating a move from joint to individual taxation on the basis of both models, we obtain important discrepancies between predicted adjustments to labour supply and distortions in the Welfare Analysis of the reform on the basis of unitary estimates.
-
Welfare Analysis of Fiscal Reforms : Does the Representation of the Family Decision Process Matter? Evidence for Germany
2003Co-Authors: Denis Beninger, François Laisney, Miriam BebloAbstract:This paper compares predictions obtained for the Analysis of tax reforms with collective and unitary models of household labour supply and consumption behaviour. We simulate real world microdata by means of a collective approach, using a compound procedure of estimation and calibration based on the 1998 wave of the German socioeconomic panel. We estimate a unitary model on this collective data set. Investigating a move from joint to individual taxation on the basis of both models, we obtain important discrepancies between predicted adjustments to labour supply and distortions in the Welfare Analysis of the reform on the basis of unitary estimates. These results suggest that increased efforts should be devoted to the estimation of collective models with taxation.
