《财政学》罗森英文版课后习题答案上(30页).doc

-财政学罗森英文版课后习题答案上-第 27 页Instructors Manual to accompanyPublic Finance, Tenth Edition, by Harvey S. Rosen and Ted GayerChapter 1 IntroductionBrief Outline1. Public Finance and Ideologya. The Organic View of Government b. The Mechanistic View of Government c. The Viewpoint of This Book 2. Government at a Glancea. Legal Frameworki. Federal Governmentii. State and Local Governmentsb. Size of Government c. Expendituresd. Revenuese. Our AgendaSuggested Answers to End-of-Chapter Discussion Questionsa. McCains statement is consistent with an organic conception of government. Individuals and their goals are less important than the state.b. Locke makes a clear statement of the mechanistic view of the state in which individual liberty is of paramount importance.c. Chavezs statement is consistent with an organic view of government. The individual has significance only as part of society as a whole.2. Libertarians believe in a very limited government and are skeptical about the ability of government to improve social welfare. Social democrats believe that substantial government intervention is required for the good of individuals. Someone with an organic conception of the state believes that the goals of society are set by the state and individuals are valued only by their contribution to the realization of social goals.a. A law prohibiting receiving compensation for organ donation would be opposed by libertarians, as they would want the market to decide who buys and who sells organs and at what price the organs would be sold. Social democrats also might oppose the law if they consider that such a law would prevent organ donation from happening as frequently. However, they are likely to support the law on the grounds that paying for organ donation would coerce financially desperate people to sell their organs. The law would protect the individual from making a poor decision. The organic view might also oppose the law because the society might become healthier if more individuals received transplants, although they would believe that individuals should donate for the good of society, rather than for compensation. b. Libertarians oppose the law mandating helmet use for motorcyclists, arguing that individuals can best decide whether or not to use helmets without government coercion. Social democrats take the position that the mandate saves lives and ultimately benefits individuals. The organic view would probably lead to favoring the mandate on the grounds that reduced health care costs caused by fewer injuries benefit society.c. Libertarians oppose the law mandating child safety seats, arguing that individuals can best decide whether or not to use child safety seats without government coercion. Social democrats take the position that the mandate saves lives and ultimately benefits individuals. The organic view would probably lead to favoring the mandate on the grounds that reduced health care costs caused by fewer accidents benefit society.d. Libertarians would probably oppose a law prohibiting prostitution, while social democrats would likely favor such a law. The organic view depends on the type of society policymakers are attempting to achieve. The law would probably be favored on moral grounds.e. Libertarians would probably oppose a law prohibiting polygamy, while social democrats would likely favor such a law. The organic view depends on the type of society policymakers are attempting to achieve. The law would probably be favored on moral grounds.f. Libertarians would likely oppose the ban on trans fats in restaurants, believing that consumers will demand restaurants remove trans fats if they believe that is important. Social democrats would probably support the ban because consumers might not understand how bad trans fats are for their health. Those with an organic view would probably favor the ban because the scientific literature suggests that people who avoid trans fats are healthier, therefore the ban would reduce health care costs.3. The mechanistic view of government says that the government is a contrivance created by individuals to better achieve their individual goals. Within the mechanistic tradition, people could disagree on the tax on saturated fats to reduce obesity. Libertarians would say that people can decide what is best for themselves - whether to consume saturated fats - and do not need prodding from the government. In contrast, social democrats might argue that people are too short sighted to know what is good for them, so that government-provided inducements are appropriate.a. If the size of government is measured by direct expenditures, the mandate does not directly increase it. Costs of compliance, however, may be high and would appear as an increase in a “regulatory budget.”b. This ban would not increase government expenditures, but the high costs of compliance would increase the regulatory budget. c. Its hard to say whether this represents an increase or decrease in the size of government. One possibility is that GDP stayed the same, and government purchases of goods and services fell. Another is that government purchases of goods and services grew, but at a slower rate than the GDP. One must also consider coincident federal credit and regulatory activities and state and local budgets.d. The federal budget would decrease if grants-in-aid were reduced. However, if state and local governments offset this by increasing taxes, the size of the government sector as a whole would not go down as much as one would have guessed.4. The inflation erodes the real value of the debt by 0.036 x £904 billion or £32.54 billion. The fact that inflation reduces the real debt obligation means that this figure should be included as revenue to the government.5. If you consider the size of government as the extent to which societys resources are subject to control by the government, the both Policy 1 and Policy 2 would increase the size of government by the same amount. While it seems Policy 1 has no effect of the size of the government because it only mandates private spending, it causes resources to be under the control of the government. Policy 2 seems to affect the size of the government because it changes revenues and transfers, but the cost to each household is the same as in Policy 1, a $5000 expenditure on health insurance or in additional taxes.6. Relative to GDP, defense spending grew from 5.0 percent of GDP in 1981 to 6.0 percent of GDP in 1985 and then grew from 3.9 percent of GDP in 2007 to 4.7 percent of GDP in 20011. The increase from 2007 to 2011 was proportionally larger, but both increases were the same in terms of the percentage point increase.a. For the years 1997 to 2001, the absolute change in federal expenditures was $261.7 billion $1862.8 - $1,601.2 billion, the change in federal expenditures in real terms (2001 dollars) was $146.26 billion inflation rate = (90.727-84.628)/84.628=7.21%, $1,862 billion $1,601(1+0.0721)=$146.26 billion, the change in real government expenditures per capita was $241.26 real government expenditures per capita in 1997 (2001 dollars): $1,601.1*(1+1.0721)/0.227912 = $6,289.72; real government expenditures per capita in 2001 (2001 dollars): $1862.8/0.285225 billion = $6,530.98; $6,530.98-$6,289.72=$241.26, and the change in expenditures per GDP is -$0.01106 billion $601.1/$8,332.4 $1,862.8/$10,286.2.For the years 2007 to 2011, the absolute change in federal expenditures was $874.4 billion $3,603.1 billion - $2,728.7 billion, the change in federal expenditures in real terms (2011 dollars) was $691.9 billion inflation rate = (113.338-106.231)/106.231=6.69%, $3,603.1 billion $2728.7(1+0.10669) = $691.9 billion, the change in real government expenditures per capita was $1,899.78 real government expenditures per capita in 2007 (2011 dollars): $2,728*(1+1.10669)/0.3017 = $9,647.14; real government expenditures per capita in 2011 (2011 dollars): $3,603/0.3120 billion = $11,546.92; $11,546.92$9,647.14=$1,899.78, and the change in expenditures per GDP is -$0.0442 billion $2,728.7 /$14,028 $3,603.1/$15,094.b. The health spending and “other” categories had the largest relative increases changes from 1997 to 2001 and 2007 to 2011. Net interest had the only decrease in spending.19972001relative change from 1997 to 200120072011relative change from 2007 to 2011Defense285.7321.212.426%579.8751.329.579%Health123.8172.239.095%266.4372.539.827%Medicare190.0217.414.421%375.4485.729.382%Income secruity235.0269.814.809%366.0597.463.224%Social Security365.3433.018.533%586.2730.824.667%Net Interest244.0206.2-15.492%237.1230.0-2.995%Other157.3243.154.545%317.9435.536.993%c. The 1997 to 2001 absolute change in federal tax revenues was $411.9 billion (=$1991.1 - $1579.5), while from 2007 to 2011 the same change was -$264.5 billion (=$2303.5-$2568.0). In real terms, the 1997 to 2001 change in federal tax revenues was $298.04 (inflation over period 7.21%, real change =$1991.1-($1579.2*1.0721). For 2007 to 2011, the change in federal tax revenues was $-436.30 (inflation over period 6.69%, real change = $2303.5-$2568.0*1.0669). The change in real tax revenues per capita for 1997 to 2001 was $778.16 (=($1991.1/.285225-$1579.2*(1.0721)/0.272958) and for 2007 to 2011 was $-1699.26 (=($2303.5/.312040-$2568.0*(1.0669)/0.301696). The change in the tax revenues per GDP from 1997 to 2001 was 0.004 (=$1991.1/10286.2-$1579.5/8332.4) and from 2007 to 2011 was 0.0530 ($2303.5/15094-$2568.0/14028).d. From 1997 to 2001, social insurance taxes had the largest relative increase. From 2007 to 2011, the excise tax had the largest relative increase. From 1997 to 2001 and 2007 to 2011, social corporate taxes revenue had the largest relative decrease.19972001relative change from 1997 to 200120072011relative change from 2007 to 2011Individual Income Tax737.5994.334.820%1163.51091.5-6.188%Corporate Tax182.3151.1-17.115%370.2181.1-51.080%Social Insurance539.4694.028.661%869.6818.8-5.842%Excise Tax120.1151.726.311%164.7212.128.780%Chapter 2 Tools of Positive AnalysisBrief Outline1. The Role of Theory2. Causation versus Correlation3. Experimental Studiesa. Conducting an Experimental Studyb. Pitfalls of Experimental Studies4. Observational Studiesa. Conducting an Observational Studyb. Pitfalls of Observational Studies5. Quasi-Experimental Studiesa. Conducting a Quasi-Experimental Studyb. Pitfalls of Quasi-Experimental Studies6. Conclusions Answers to End-of-Chapter Questions1. A change in the marginal tax rate changes the individuals net wage. This generates both an income effect and a substitution effect. As long as leisure is a normal good, these effects work in opposite directions. Hence, one cannot tell a priori whether labor supply increases or decreases. If there were no political or legal impediments, an experimental study could be conducted in which a control group confronts the status quo, and an experimental group faces the new tax regime. Other things that affect work effort would impact both the control group and the experimental group, so any difference in work effort between the two groups could be attributed to the change in marginal tax rates.2. This is a valid criticism of the study of New York Homelessness. It reflects the problem of causality. Two things may be correlated, but it can be difficult to determine which causes the other. The remedy would be to set up a study in which individuals are randomly assigned to groups. In an experimental study, the group offered job training, counseling services, and emergency money would not necessarily be more motivated than a group not signed up for those services, so if they do not become homeless, it could be attributed to the programs.3. The workers who spend time on a computer probably have other skills and abilities that contribute to higher wages, so training children to use computers would not necessarily cause their earnings potential to improve. This study illustrates the difficulty of determining cause and effect based on correlations. The data do not reveal whether using a computer causes higher earnings, or whether other factors cause workers to use computers and to earn higher wages.4. The text points out the pitfalls of social experiments: the problem of obtaining a random sample and the problems of extending results beyond the scope of the experiment. Participants in the study had found it to their advantage to be a part of the experiment, which may have resulted in a self-selected population unrepresentative of the wider group of health care consumers. In addition, the RAND Health Insurance Experiment was of limited duration, after which the participants would move to some other health plan. This design could induce certain behavior in the short-run that would not necessarily be present if the health insurance coverage were permanent rather than transitory. Further, physicians “standard practices” are largely determined by the circumstances of the population as a whole, not the relatively small experimental group.5. The scenario set up by the change in unemployment lends itself to a difference in difference approach, in which the first difference is across time and the second difference is across income level. The researcher would measure the change in unemployment duration for high earners between the period of lower benefits and the period of higher benefits, and then compare this change to the change for the low earners. The treatment group would be the high earners and the control group would be the low earners. The assumption that must hold for unbiased estimates is that in the absence of the policy change, both the treatment and control groups would have experienced the same change in unemployment duration across the periods preceding and following the policy change.6. Since only five states reduced income taxes, we could examine what happened in a control group of states (those with an income tax but with no change in the tax rates) and compare savings rates between the two. This is important because other factors affect savings rates, but if other factors affected both the control group and the treatment group, then we can conclude that the treatment (lower taxes) caused the change in savings. If, for example, the saving rate for the five states with lower taxes (the treatment group) increased by two percent, while the savings rate for the other states (the control group) increased by one percent, then we could conclude that lower taxes caused the saving