Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the standard non‐linear income taxation framework with heterogeneity of preferences, in this paper the optimality of workfare as a screening tool is examined. It is assumed that workfare does not serve as a human capital investment, participation is mandatory, and administrative costs are negligible. Imposing alternative cardinalizations on individuals utilities allows for the possibility that the government optimally redistributes income to or from high disutility of labour individuals. Under either case, it is never optimal to impose workfare on these individuals. It is also shown that non‐productive workfare can be an efficient policy tool, in contrast to the results found in Besley and Coate (1995), Brett (1998), and Beaudry and Blackorby (1997). JEL Classification: H21, H23 Optimalité du workfare en présence de préférences hétérogènes. L'auteur examine l'timalité du workfare en tant qu'instrument de tamisage à l'aide du cadre conceptuel traditionnel d'imposition non‐linéaire des revenus en présence de préférences hétérogènes. On postule que le workfare n'est pas un processus d'investissement en capital humain, que la participatioun est obligatoire, et que les coûts d'administration sont négligeables. Quand on postule aussi des utilités cardinales différentes pour les individus, il devient possible pour le gouvernement de redistribuer optimalement les revenus en faveur ou au détriment des individus pour qui le travail a une très grande désutilité. Dans l'un et l'autre cas, on montre que le workfare n'est jamais une politique optimale. On montre aussi que le workfare dans des activités non‐productives peut être un instrument de politique publique efficient, contrairement a ce qu'affirment Besley et Coate (1995), Brett (1998) et Beaudry et Blackorby (1997).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".