A Unified Welfare Analysis of Government Policies*
By Nathaniel Hendren, Ben Sprung-Keyser. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2019
418 citations recorded by the source corpus.
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.
Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Gender Studies
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db85aafe6d52ace5e94ade586d93b5390bffeb21
Citations in the corpus
- The Long-Term Effects of Universal Preschool in Boston (2021, neutral): “Cost/benefit analyses suggest that these interventions are among the most cost-effective social programs on record (Barnett 1985; Belfield et al. 2006; Heckman et al. 2010b; Hendren and Sprung-Keyser 2020).”