program benefit
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

35
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 619-631
Author(s):  
R. Mark Simpson ◽  
Shelley B. Hoover ◽  
Barbara J. Davis ◽  
John Hickerson ◽  
Margaret A. Miller ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-22
Author(s):  
LeRoy T. Hansen

Much of the research on ecosystem service values (ESVs) has limited applicability to USDA program benefit analyses, largely because the models/data/results (1) lack spatial breadth and hence cannot be applied in national analyses of USDA programs, and (2) do not link land use changes to the changes in ESs. This article provides an overview of a set of 15 ESVs related to agriculture's impacts on erosion in order to identify (1) weaknesses in methods, data, and assumptions that limit the quality of the ESVs and means of avoiding such weaknesses in future ESV development, and (2) approaches that might improve the reliability and spatial resolution of future ESV estimates.


10.3982/qe657 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 1357-1399 ◽  
Author(s):  
William B. Peterman ◽  
Kamila Sommer

A well‐established result in the literature is that Social Security reduces steady state welfare in a standard life cycle model. However, less is known about the historical quantitative effects of the program on agents who were alive when the program was adopted. In a computational life cycle model that simulates the Great Depression and the enactment of Social Security, this paper quantifies the welfare effects of the program's enactment on the cohorts of agents who experienced it. In contrast to the standard steady state results, we find that the adoption of the original Social Security generally improved these cohorts' welfare, in part because these cohorts received far more benefits relative to their contributions than they would have received if they lived their entire life in the steady state with Social Security. Moreover, the negative general equilibrium welfare effect of Social Security associated with capital crowd‐out was reduced during the transition, because it took many periods for agents to adjust their savings levels in response to the program's adoption. The positive welfare effect experienced by these transitional agents offers one explanation for why the program that may reduce welfare in the steady state was originally adopted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document