2018年3月9日星期五

基于地基政策的一些经济学

谈到公共政策,以帮助穷人的帮助,经济学家们倾向于倾向于侧重于贫穷的个人,而不是在贫困人群份额份额上的地方。这似乎是一个更好的目标,以实现稀缺的公共资源。有一些担心如果重点转移到地方,那么大部分利益将流向生活在那些地方的房主 - 因此看到了物业价值观的改善 - 或者到当地建筑承包商,而不是直接帮助穷人。此外,健康的经济将会看到人们走向更具吸引力的目的地,而基于地方的地点的支持往往会妨碍这种迁移。

但一些经济学家正在重新思考基于地方的政策的杂象。本杰明奥斯汀,爱德华格拉伯勒和劳伦斯H.夏天已经写了“拯救心脏:31世纪美国的地方政策”2018年春季问题布鲁金斯论文论经济活动。正如他们所说,我们似乎已经进入了时间地理移动y是下来的当R.收入的emial融合已经下降。他们写:
"America’s western frontier may have closed at the end of the 19th century, but there was still a metropolitan frontier where workers from depressed areas could find a more prosperous future. Five facts collectively suggest that this geographic escape valve has tightened: declining geographic mobility, increasingly inelastic housing supplies in high income areas, declining income convergence, increased sorting by skill across space, and persistent pockets of non-employment. Together these facts suggest that even if income differences across space have declined, the remaining economic differences may be a greater source of concern. Consequently, it may be time to target pro-employment policies towards our most distressed areas. ...

"We divide the U.S. into three regions: the prosperous coasts, the western heartland and the eastern heartland, The coasts have high incomes, but the western heartland also benefits from natural resources and high levels of historical education. America’s social problems, including non-employment, disability, opioid-related deaths and rising mortality, are concentrated in America’s eastern heartland, states from Mississippi to
密歇根州,一般都在密西西比州而不是在大西洋海岸。三个地区之间的收入和就业差距不趋同,而是似乎仍然是硬化......“
本文有一堆图显示这三个地区的差异。以下是经济增长的数字,黄金时期的份额不起作用,以及这三个地区的男性的死亡率。



什么会是基于地工的政策看起来像?随着作者指出的,此类策略可以明确或隐含。例如,田纳西州谷权威的基础设施政策是明确的针对某个地理区域。然而,像联邦公路系统(如洪水保险)这样的基础设施项目将显然对高速公路或更高的洪水风险的人显然具有特定的地理效应,而无需实际命名某个地理区域。仔细考虑期权后,他们建议有针对性的就业补贴可能是最好的赌注。他们写:
“政策地理统治的最佳案例是,在高效不工作区内的非就业中的一美元将在低于非工作率区域的非雇佣金额中减少非雇佣金额。该异构劳动力供应应对要求休克或公共干预措施的经验证据是有限的,但大概支持降低该国某些地区不工作率的观点比在国家其他地区更容易。......虽然基础设施仍然存在an important investment for America, targeting infrastructure spending towards distressed areas risks producing projects with limited value for users. By contrast, enhanced spending on employment subsidies in high not working rate areas, and perhaps the U.S. as a whole, seems like a more plausible means of reducing not working rates."
对于那些对这种方法感兴趣的人来说,这是对“我们如何了解补贴的就业计划?“(2016年4月25日)。