Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:02:44.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency without Apology: Consideration of the Marginal Excess Tax Burden and Distributional Impacts in Benefit–Cost Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2020

Anthony E. Boardman ,
David H. Greenberg ,
Aidan R. Vining  and
David L. Weimer
Anthony E. Boardman
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
David H. Greenberg*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, USA, e-mail: dhgreenb@umbc.edu
Aidan R. Vining
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
David L. Weimer
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
*
*e-mail: dhgreenb@umbc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some issues in the application of benefit–cost analysis (BCA) remain contentious. Although a strong conceptual case can be made for taking account of the marginal excess tax burden (METB) in conducting BCAs, it is usually excluded. Although a strong conceptual case can be made that BCA should not include distributional values, some analysts continue to advocate doing so. We discuss the cases for inclusion of the METB and the exclusion of distributional weights from what we refer to as “core” BCA, which we argue should be preserved as a protocol for assessing allocative efficiency. These issues are topical because a recent article in this journal recommends ignoring the METB on the grounds that desirable distributional effects offset its cost. We challenge the logic of this article and explain why it may encourage inefficient policies.

Keywords

benefit-cost analysismarginal excess tax burdendistributional weightsdistributional effectsmulti-goal analysissocial welfare function
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Fall 2020 , pp. 457 - 478
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, P. 2020. “A Partial Review of Seven Official Guidelines for Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Journal of Cost-Benefit Analysis, 11(2): 272–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acland, D. 2020. “What’s In, What’s Out? Towards a Rigorous Definition of the Boundaries of BCA.” Working Paper, Goldman School, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Adler, M. D. 2016. “Benefit–Cost Analysis and Distributional Weights: An Overview.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2): 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, M. D. 2019. Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S. and Croushore, D. 1992. “The Marginal Cost of Funds with Nonseparable Public Spending.” Papers 9-92-7. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Alesina, A., and Giuliano, P. 2011. “Preferences for Redistribution.” In Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1, 93–131. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1994. “Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge.” American Economic Review, 84(2): 1–9.Google Scholar
Ballard, C. L., Shoven, J. B., and Whalley, J. 1985. “The Total Welfare Cost of the United States Tax System: A General Equilibrium Approach.” National Tax Journal, 38(2): 125–40.Google Scholar
Barrios, S., Greve, B., Hussain, M. A., Paulus, A., Picos, F., and Riscado, S. 2017. “Measuring the Fiscal and Equity Impact of Tax evasion: Evidence from Denmark and Estonia.” JRC Working Papers on Taxation and Structural Reforms No 05/2017, JRC10962, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain.Google Scholar
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., and Weimer, D. L. 2018. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 5th ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., and Ockenfels, A. 2000. “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review, 90(1): 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, F., van der Pol, T., and Romijn, G. 2019. “Should Benefit-Cost Analysis Include a Correction for the Marginal Excess Burden of Taxation?” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 10(3): 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, T. J. 2014. “Behavioral Economics and Policy Evaluation.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5(1): 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, H. and Bond, K. 1997. “The Cost of Public Funds in Australia,” The Economic Record, 73: 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causa, O., and Hermansen, M. 2019. “Income Redistribution Through Taxes and Transfers Across OECD Countries.” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1453, Paris, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, R. 2015. “Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective.” American Economic Review, 105(5): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, D. E., Ripberger, J. T., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., Berrens, R. P., and Jones, B. A. 2016. “Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process: An Application to Used Nuclear Fuel in the United States.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7(3), 459–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. 1976. “Adam Smith’s View of Man.” Journal of Law and Economics, 19(3): 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantatos, C., and West, E. G. 1991. “Measuring Returns from Education: Some Neglected Factors.” Canadian Public Policy, 17(2): 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlby, B. 2008. The Marginal Cost of Public Funds: Theory and Application. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlby, B. 1994. “The Distortionary Effect of Rising Taxes.” In Robson, William B.P. and Scarth, William M. (Eds.), Deficit Reduction: What Pain; What Gain? Policy Study 23. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.Google Scholar
Eckstein, O. 1961. “A Survey of the Theory of Public Expenditure Criteria.” In Public Finance Needs, Sources and Utilization, edited by Buchanan, J. M.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evansky, J. 2005. “Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments: On Morals and Why they Matter to a Liberal Society of Free People and Free Markets.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3): 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., and Abi-Rafeh, R. 2016. “The Use of Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Insights from Welfare Economics.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2): 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujiwara, D. 2010. “The Department for Work and Pensions Social Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework: Methodologies for Estimating and Incorporating the Wider Social and Economic Impacts of Work in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Employment Programmes”. Working Paper No. 86. Department for Work and Pensions, UK.Google Scholar
Fullerton, D. and Henderson, Y.K. 1989. “The Marginal Excess Burden of Different Capital Tax Instrument,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 71: 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramlich, E. M. 1990. A Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis , 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Greenberg, D., Walter, J., and Knight, G. 2013. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Random Assignment UK Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration.” Applied Economics , 45(31): 4535–4354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J., and Saez, E. 2002. “The Elasticity of Taxable Income: Evidence and Implications,” Journal of Public Economics, 84(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillaud, E., Olckers, M., and Zemmour, M. 2017. “Four Levers of Redistribution: The Impact of Tax and Transfer Systems on Inequality Reduction.” EconPapers. Available at https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/lisliswps/695.htm (accessed March 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M. 2018. “Philosophy of Economics”. In Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/economics/. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2020 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095–5054.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 2005. “Methodological Individualism”. In Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (revised 2015). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2020 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095–5054.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., and Yavitz, A. 2010. “The Rate of Return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program”. Journal of Public Economics, 94: 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1939. “The Foundations of Welfare Economics.” Economic Journal, 49(196): 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochman, H. M., and Rodgers, J. D. 1969. “Pareto Optimal Redistribution.” American Economic Review, 59(4): 542–557.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 2007 “Meanings of Methodological Individualism.” Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(2): 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joumard, I., Pisu, M., and Bloch, D. 2012. “Less income inequality and more growth—Are they compatible?” Part 3. Income redistribution via taxes and transfers across OECD Countries. Economics Department Working Papers, No. 926. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9h296b1zjf-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, K. L. 1985. “Marginal Excess Burden in a Dynamic Economy.” Economics Letters, 18: 213–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. 1990. “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy , 98(6), 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaldor, N. 1939. “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Economic Journal, 49(195): 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleven, H. J. and Kreiner, C. T. 2006. “The Marginal Cost of Public Funds: Hours of Work Versus Labor Force Participation,” Journal of Public Economics, 90(10-11): 1955–1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutilla, K. 2005. “Using the Kaldor-Hicks Tableau Format for Cost-Benefit Analysis and Policy Evaluation.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(4): 864–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. A., Mallar, C. D., and Thornton, C. V. D. 1981. “Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of the Job Corps.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A.1890. Principles of Economics. London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. A. Jr. 1991. “A Reflection on Bureaucracy and Representative Government.” In The Budget Maximizing Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence, edited by Blaise, A., and Dion, S., 13–31. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P. 2020. “Measuring Populism Worldwide.” Harvard Kennedy School. RWP20–002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Management and Budget 2019. Marginal Excess Tax Burden as a Potential Cost Under E.O. 13771. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OMB-2017-0002-0055 (accessed 6 December 2020).Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pennock, J. R. 1979. Democratic Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C. R., and Zeiler, K. 2005. “The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect,” Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations.” American Economic Review, 95(3): 530–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, L. A., and Hammitt, J. K. 2011. “Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(2): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggeri, G. 1999. “The Marginal Cost of Public Funds in Closed and Small Open Economies,” Fiscal Studies, 20(1): 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scitovsky, T. 1941. “A Note on Welfare Propositions in Economics.” Review of Economic Studies, 9(1): 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scitovsky, T. 1951. “The State of Welfare Economics.” American Economic Review, 51(3): 301–315.Google Scholar
Stuart, Charles E. 1984. “Welfare Cost Per Dollar of Additional Tax Revenue in the United States,” American Economic Review, 74: 352–362.Google Scholar
Talvitie, A. 2018. “Jules Dupuit and Benefit-Cost Analysis: Making Past to be the Present.” Transport Policy, 70(C): 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tran, C., and Wende, S. 2017. “On the Marginal Excess Burden of Taxation in an Overlapping Generations Model.” TTPI Working Paper 7/2017. Research School of Economics, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trumbull, W. N. 1990. “Who has Standing in Cost-Benefit Analysis?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(2), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. 2018. Pricing Lives: Guideposts for a Safer Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K., and Masterman, C. J. 2017. “Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2): 226–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Pol, T., Bos, F., and Romijn, G. 2018. “Distributionally Weighted Cost-Benefit Analysis: From Theory to Practice. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis Discussion Paper. 364, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, D. L. 2017. Behavioral Economics for Cost-Benefit Analysis: Benefit Validity When Sovereign Consumers Make Mistakes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, D. L., and Vining, A. R. 2009. “An Agenda for Promoting and Improving the Use of CBA in Social Policy.” In Investing in the Disadvantaged: Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Social Policies, edited by Weimer, D. L., and Vining, A. R., 249–271. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. L., and Vining, A. R. 2017. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 6th ed. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1983. “On the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium: 1930–1954.” Journal of Economic Literature, 21(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Whittington, D., and MacRae, D. Jr. 1986. “The Issue of Standing in Cost‐benefit Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 665–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, D., and MacRae, D. 1990. “Comment: Judgments about Who has Standing in Cost-benefit Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(4), 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. 1980. The Politics of Regulation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R. O. Jr. 1991. “Comment: Does Benefit-Cost Analysis Stand Alone? Rights and Standing.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, R. O. Jr. 1998. “Is Cost‐benefit Analysis Legal? Three Rules.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,17(3), 419–456.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, R. O. 2004. “Should Moral Sentiments be Incorporated into Benefit-Cost Analysis? An Example of Long-Term Discounting.” Policy Sciences, 37(3–4): 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar