All
 
|
 
 


Social Policy: Scientific Justification’ Unresolved Problem
 
PIIS086904990011575-4-1
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Vitaliy Tambovtsev 
Occupation: Chief research scientist
Affiliation: Moscow Lomonosow State University
Address: 1, bld. 46, Leninskie gory, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation
Journal nameObshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost
EditionIssue 6
Pages5-13
Abstract

The factors determine state social policies parameters such as budget expenditures on education, health sphere, social protection, and so on financing, are in the focus of academics very long time, and are discussed in the voluminous theoretic and empiric literature. The reason for this attention is obvious: the researchers believe that scientifi c justifi cation of the social policies parameters gives possibilities to harmonize these ones with the interests of stakeholders, such as the voting public, politicians, and bureaucrats. This harmony in turn will be enhance social welfare and reduce social tensions hence promoting social policy goals fulfi llment.

This article’ author analyze the efforts to reveal quantitative linkage between some economic and political indicators on the one hand, and social policies parameters, on the other hand using econometrics’ tools. It is shown that these researches have revealed some partial and local associations taking place at certain periods of time although general regularity is meanwhile unknown. In this regard two qualitative approaches to justify the social policies parameters are analyzed: (1) based on bounded rationality and nudge, and (2) based on merit goods conception. Studying these approaches demonstrates that they are irrelevant to the problem of social policies parameters’ justification.

General conclusion is made that these parameters are the result of the politicians’ discretional decisions following different goals at the different periods of time so the discovery of objective regularities is unlikely possible one.

Keywordssocial policy, budget expenditure, bounded rationality, nudge, merit goods
Received15.09.2020
Publication date17.12.2015
Number of characters946
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 459

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Adam A., Delis M.D., Kammas P. (2011) Are democratic governments more effi cient? European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 27. Iss. 1. Pp. 75–86.
2. Alesina A. (1988) Credibility and Convergence in a Two-party System with Rational Voters. American Economic Review. Vol. 78. No. 4. Pp. 796–805.
3. Basu P., Bhattarai K. (2012) Government Bias in Education, Schooling Attainment, and Long-run Growth. Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 79. No. 1. Pp. 127–143.
4. Baumol W. (1967) Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: the Anatomy of Urban Crisis. American Economic Review. Vol. 57. No. 3. Ðp. 415–426.
5. Bavetta S., Navarra P. (2011) Economic Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness. 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington (DC): Heritage Foundation. Pp. 61–68.
6. Berg N. (2003) Normative behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-economics. Vol. 32. Iss. 4. Pp. 411–427.
7. Bergh A., Erlingsson G.O. (2009) Liberalization without Retrenchment: Understanding the Consensus on Swedish Welfare State Reforms. Scandinavian Political Studies. Vol. 32. Iss. 1. Ðp. 71–93.
8. Binder M. (2014) Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism? Journal of Evolutionary Economics. Vol. 24. Iss. 3. Ðp. 515–539.
9. Binder M., Lades L.K. (2015) Autonomy-enhancing Paternalism. Kyklos. Vol. 68. Iss. 1. Pp. 3–27.
10. Blankenau W., Camera G. (2009) Public spending on education and the incentives for student achievement. Economica. Vol. 76. Iss. 303. Ðp. 505–527.
11. Calvert R.L. (1985) Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 29. No. 1. Ðp. 69–95.
12. Camerer C., Issacharoff S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T., Rabin M. (2003) Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetrical Paternalism”. Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 151. Iss. 3. Pp. 1211–1254.
13. Durevall D., Henrekson M. (2011) The futile quest for a grand explanation of long-run government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 95. Iss. 7–8. Ðp. 708–722.
14. Facchini F. (2014) The determinants of public spending: a survey in a methodological perspective. MPRA Paper no. 53006. January17 (URL:http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53006/). 
15. Glaeser E. (2006) Paternalism and Psychology. Univ. of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 73. No. 1. Pp. 133–156.
16. Guala F., Mittone L. (2015) A Political Justifi cation of Nudging. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. March.
17. Hanushek E.A. (2003) The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal. Vol. 113. Iss. 485. Ðp. F64–F98.
18. Inglehart R., Foa R., Peterson C., Welzel C. (2008) Development, Freedom, and Rising Happiness: a Global Perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 3. No. 4. Pp. 264–285.
19. Kahneman D., Lovallo D. (1993) Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: a Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking. Management Science. Vol. 39. Iss. 1. Pp. 17–31.
20. Keefer P., Knack S. (2007) Boondoggles, Rent-seeking, and Political Checks and Balances: Public Investment under Unaccountable Governments. Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 89. No. 3. Pp. 566–572.
21. Krepelka J. (2007) Public Goods and Private Preferences: are They Reconcilable? / Univ. of Geneva (URL: http:// www.jankrepelka.com/p/Public_ Goods_and_ Private_Preferences.pdf).
22. Layard R. (2010) The Greatest Happiness Principle: Its Time Has Come. CESifo Database for Institutional Comparisons in Europe. Vol. 8. No. 4. Pp. 26–31.
23. Loewenstein G., Haisley E.C. (2007) The Economist as Therapist: Methodological Ramifi cations of ‘Light’ Paternalism. February 28 (URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/  ssrn.962472).
24. Lopez R., Galinato G.I. (2007) Should governments stop subsidies to private goods? Evidence from rural Latin America. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 91. Iss. 5–6. Ðp. 1071–1094.
25. Lusk J.L., Marette S., Norwood F.B. (2014) The Paternalist Meets His Match. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. Vol. 36. No. 1. Pp. 61–108.
26. Mayer T. (1980) Economics as a Hard Science: Realistic Goal or Wishful Thinking? Economic Inquiry. Vol. 18. Iss. 2. Ðp. 165–177.
27. Meltzer A.H., Richard S.F. (1981) A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 89. Iss. 5. Ðp. 914–927.
28. Mitchell G. (2005) Libertarian Paternalism Is an Oxymoron. Northwestern Univ. Law Review. Vol. 99. No. 3. Ðp. 1245–1277.
29. Moene K.O., Wallerstein M. (2001) Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review. Vol. 95. No. 4. Ðp. 859–874.
30. Molina-Morales A., Fortes I. A., Rueda A.G. (2012) Institutions and Public Spending on Education among the Nations of the OECD. July 10 (URL:http://ssrn.  com/abstract=2108334).
31. Mulligan C.B., Gil R., Sala-i-Martin X. (2004) Do Democracies Have Different Public Policies than Nondemocracies?. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 18. Nî. 1. Pp. 51–74.
32. Musgrave R. (1959) The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. O’Donoghue T., Rabin M. (2003) Studying Optimal Paternalism, Illustrated by a Model of Sin Taxes. American Economic Review. Vol. 93. No. 2. Pp. 186–191.
34. Oishi S., Diener E. (2014) Can and Should Happiness Be a Policy Goal? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp. 195–203.
35. Pasche M. (2014) Soft Paternalism and Nudging – Critique of the Behavioral Foundations. MPRA Paper no. 61140. December 20 (URL: http://mpra.ub.  uni-muenchen.de/61140/1/MPRA_paper_61140.pdf).
36. Persson T., Tabellini G. (1994) Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? American Economic Review. Vol. 84. No. 3. Ðp. 600–621.
37. Potrafke N. (2010) Does Government Ideology Infl uence Budget Composition? Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries. Univ. of Konstanz. Department of Economics. Working Paper Series 2010–16. December 13.
38. Rizzo M.J., Whitman D.G. (2009) Little brother is watching you: New paternalism on the slippery slopes. Arizona Law Review. Vol. 51. No. 3. Pp. 685–739.
39. Romer T. (1975) Individual Welfare, Majority Voting, and the Properties of a Linear Income Tax. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 4. Iss. 2. Ðp. 163–185.
40. Schnellenbach J. (2012) Nudges and norms: on the political economy of soft paternalism. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 28. Iss. 2. Ðp. 266–277.
41. Starke P. (2006) The Politics of Welfare State Retrenchment: a Literature Review. Social Policy and Administration. Vol. 40. Iss. 1. Ðp. 104–120.
42. Sugden R. (2008) Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Constitutional Political Economy. Vol. 19. Iss. 3. Pp. 226–248.
43. Sunstein C.R., Thaler R.H. (2003) Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron. Univ. of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 70. No. 4. Pp. 1159–1202.
44. Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R. (2003) Libertarian Paternalism. American Economic Review. Vol. 93. No. 2. Ðp. 175–179.
45. Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R. (2008) Nudge, Improving Decisions on Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
46. Vis B. (2009) Governments and unpopular social policy reform: Biting the bullet or steering clear? European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 48. Iss. 1. Ðp. 31–57.
47. White M.D. (2013) The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
48. Wright R. (1985) The Redistributive Roles of Unemployment Insurance and the Dynamics of Voting. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 31. Iss. 3. Ðp. 377–399.
49. Yamamura E. (2010) Public spending on education: Its impact on students skipping classes and completing school. MPRA Paper no. 23657. June 30.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up