对内生人口的福利经济学的综述

发布时间：2018-06-24 15:24

本文选题：福利经济学 + 功利主义　；参考：《山东大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：我的论文是对内生人口情形下福利经济学的综述文章。经典福利经济学把人口集合看作外生的。但很多政策选择都涉及内生人中变迁的福利比较,比如生育政策、移民政策。经典福利经济学在这种情形下作用很小。还有很多政策决定会影响未来人的福利。比如我们处理气候变化的方式不只影响我们的生活,也和未米世代的生活有关。而像三峡大坝这样的大型工程会改变未来人生活的环境。传统上对这方面进行福利分析时会武断地给出一个社会福利函数。但实际上未来人口的出生是内生的。为了寻求新的考虑未来人口福利的方法,我们转向内生人口福利经济学的最新发展。传统的固定人口集合上的社会选择叫做相同人员选择(same people choice)。人口集合不同但人口规模固定的选择叫做相同数目选择(same number choice)。涉及变化的人口规模的选择叫做不同数目选择(different number choice)。经典福利经济学只处理相同人员选择。所以需要找到能在相同数目选择尤其是不同数目选择中应用的新的比较福利的方法。论文首先给出了一个基本的福利比较的跨期模型,并回顾了经典的外生人口福利经济学。经典福利经济学中主要有两种方法：社会选择方法和帕累托有效方法。后者分离出帕累托前沿,前者决定前沿上的最优状态。社会选择方法经常和社会福利函数结合使用。经济学文献中经常出现的两种社会福利函数分别是功利主义社会福利函数和罗尔斯主义社会福利函数。不同数目选择的中心问题是个人福利和人口规模之间的平衡。为了理解这个平衡是什么意思,我们从这个问题开始：往社会中加入一个人同时保持其他人的福利都不受影响,这个过程怎么影响社会福利?这个过程被称为“纯加(mere addition)"。帕累托加成原则(Pareto plus principle)说,如果这个人的效用大于零,那么增加这个人就对社会有利。然后可以重新安排效用让所有人的效用样。我们可以相信社会福利增加了因为社会变得更加平等了。如果传递性成立,那么现在这个社会就比初始状态好。重复以上过程,我们就可以得到这样一个社会状态：相比初始状态,其中活着的人更多,但每个人的效用都低了很多。从以上的论证得知,这个状态比初始状态好。但大多数人不会同意这个观点,因为一般人不会偏好大规模贫困。哲学家Parfit把这个悖论叫做“纯加悖论(mere addition paradox)"。然后,认为有很多人生活在很糟糕的境地下的状态是社会所偏好的——这个结论被他取名叫“让人讨厌的结论(the repugnant conclusion)"。很容易看出让人讨厌的结论可以由经典功利主义推出。所以经典功利主义不应该应用于不同数目选择。在Parfit的著作发表后,很多学者研究怎么避免让人讨厌的结论。很多解决方案集中在重新评估纯加的福利变化上。这意味着帕累托加成原则要被修正，一个吸引了经济学家注意的修正方案是关键水平原则。它认为只有一个人的效用超过一个被称作关键水平(critical level)的门槛时，他才应该被加到社会里。这个原则把私人价值和社会价值区分开,并提供了一个解决让人讨厌的结论的好办法。相应地总效用原则也由经典功利主义变成了所谓的关键水平功利主义,每个人的价值由他自己的效用变成了他自己效用减去关键水平。我的论义将会介绍怎么通过社会选择方法在一个跨期框架中推导出关键水平功利主义。关于历史的公理在其中起了重要作用。不同数目选择下社会福利函数存在性的证明也在综述之列。内生人口变迁的一个特例的内生生育。内生生育意味着，，人们在乎他们子女的数目和福利,并决定子女的数目和给子女的遗产。对内生生育的研究很繁荣,而对此的福利分析则相对滞后。因为传统的帕累托有效概念只能应同于固定人口集合的相同人口选抒。最近有三篇论文尝试把帕累托有效概念扩展到内生人口变迁的情形。它们都用了有内生生育的OLG框架,都证明了各自版本的第一福利定理。其中两篇论文只处理对称情形,而另一篇论文——Golosov、Jones和Tertilt的《efficiency with endogenous population growth》(内生人口增长的效率)提供了一个很一般的框架。这篇论文定义了两个新概念。一个是把所有潜在人口对称处理的P有效,另一个是只关心实际出生人口的A有效。可以通过框架的设定来确保生育水平最高的配置不是唯一的有效配置，这样就避免了让人讨厌的结论。这篇论文证明了：如果一个配置在每个家族内都有效并且没有家族间外部性,那么这个配置就是有效率的。这样作者区分了两个无效性的来源：家族内无效和家族间外部性在综述了内生人口福利经济学之后,可以得出结论,这个领域的进展给出了一些有趣的结果。可以把关键水平功利主义和效率的概念结合起来评估福利。但也可以看到,这个领域的研究还很不允分,留下了很多供未来研究的空间。比如,所有这些文献都没有考虑不确定性。信息问题也被忽略了。在内生人口情形中引入不完全信息会给机制设计理论带来新的课题。还可以作结论说,现有的福利经济学还没有找到一个处理未来人福利的完美方式。这要留给未来的研究者。
[Abstract]:My paper is a summary of the welfare economics of the endogenetic population. The classic welfare economics regards the population set as exogenous. But many policy options involve the welfare comparison of the endogenous people, such as the birth policy, the immigration policy. The classic welfare economics has little effect on this situation. There are many policy decisions. It affects the welfare of future people. For example, our way of dealing with climate change is not only affecting our lives, but also about the lives of unrice generations. And large projects like the Three Gorges Dam will change the environment for future human life. The birth of the population is endogenetic. In order to find new ways to consider the future population welfare, we turn to the latest development of endogenous population welfare economics.
The social selection on the traditional set of fixed population is called the same same people choice. The selection of population sets is different but the size of the population is called the same number selection (same number choice). The selection of the population size involving the change is called the different number selection (different number choice). The classic welfare economics only deals with the choice of population. The same people choose. So we need to find a new method of comparative benefits that can be applied in the same number of choices, especially in different number choices. First, the paper gives a basic cross term model of welfare comparison, and reviews the classical exogenous population welfare economics. There are two main methods in the classic Welfare Economics: social selection. The choice method and Pareto effective method. The latter separates the Pareto frontier, the former determines the optimal state on the frontier. The social selection method is often used in combination with the social welfare function. The two social welfare functions often appear in the economic literature are utilitarian social welfare functions and Rawls's social welfare functions.
The central problem of different number selection is the balance between personal welfare and population size. In order to understand what this balance means, we start from this question: adding a person to the society at the same time keeping others' welfare unaffected, how does the process affect social welfare? This process is called "mere addi" "Tion)." the Pareto addition principle (Pareto plus principle) says that if the man's utility is greater than zero, it will be beneficial to the society. Then we can rearrange the utility to make all the people's utility. We can believe that social welfare has increased because society is becoming more equal. If transitivity is established, then this is now Society is better than the initial state. Repeating the process, we can get a social state that is more alive than the initial state, but the utility of everyone is much lower. From the argument above, this state is better than the initial state. But most people do not agree with this view, because the average person does not prefer. Large scale poverty. The philosopher Parfit called the paradox "mere addition paradox". Then, it is thought that a lot of people live in a very bad state that is what society prefers - the conclusion is called "the repugnant conclusion". It is easy to see the disagreeable conclusion. It can be launched by classic utilitarianism, so classical utilitarianism should not be applied to different numbers of choices.
After the publication of Parfit's work, many scholars have studied how to avoid disagreeable conclusions. Many solutions focus on reassessing the benefits of pure plus. This means that the Pareto plus principle is revised, and an amendment that attracts economists' attention is the key water plain. It thinks that only one person is more effective than one. When a threshold is called the critical level, he should be added to the society. This principle separates private values from social values and provides a good way to solve disagreeable conclusions. The principle of general utility is also transformed from classic utilitarianism into so-called key level utilitarianism, everyone. The value of his own utility has become the key level of his own utility. I will introduce how to derive key level utilitarianism in a cross term framework through social selection. The axiom of history plays an important role. A summary of the summary.
A special case of endogenous birth. Endogenous birth means that people care about the number and welfare of their children, and determine the number of children and the inheritance of their children. The study of endogenous birth is prosperous and the welfare analysis of this is relatively lagging. The traditional Pareto concept of effectiveness can only be equal to the fixed population. The same population selection is expressed. Three recent papers have attempted to extend the Pareto effective concept to the situation of endogenous population changes. They both use the OLG framework with endogenous birth, all of which prove the first welfare theorem in their respective versions. Two of them only deal with the symmetry situation, and the other paper, the (the efficiency of endogenous population growth) provides a very general framework. This paper defines two new concepts. One is the effective P of all the potential population, and the other is the A that is only concerned with the actual birth population. It can ensure the highest fertility level by the framework of the framework. The configuration is efficient. The author distinguishes two sources of inefficiency: inefficiency in family and interfamily externalities, this paper proves that if a configuration is effective in every family and has no inter family externalities, the author distinguishes two sources of inefficiency: inefficiency in the family and the externality of the family.
After an overview of the economics of endogenous population welfare, it can be concluded that the progress in this field gives some interesting results. It can combine the concept of key level utilitarianism and efficiency to assess welfare. But it can also be seen that the research in this field is still very unacceptable and leaves a lot of space for future research. For example, There is no uncertainty in the literature. The information problem has been ignored. The introduction of incomplete information in the population of the endogenetic population will bring new topics to the mechanism design theory. It can be concluded that the existing welfare economics has not yet found a perfect way to deal with the welfare of the future.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：F061.4;C923

【相似文献】