Policy Design in Long-Run Welfare Dynamics

Fuente: arXiv
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wu, Jiduan, Abebe, Rediet, Hardt, Moritz, Stoica, Ana-Andreea
Format: Preprint
Published: 2025
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866910022549635072
author Wu, Jiduan
Abebe, Rediet
Hardt, Moritz
Stoica, Ana-Andreea
author_facet Wu, Jiduan
Abebe, Rediet
Hardt, Moritz
Stoica, Ana-Andreea
contents Improving social welfare is a complex challenge requiring policymakers to optimize objectives across multiple time horizons. Evaluating the impact of such policies presents a fundamental challenge, as those that appear suboptimal in the short run may yield significant long-term benefits. We tackle this challenge by analyzing the long-term dynamics of two prominent policy frameworks: Rawlsian policies, which prioritize those with the greatest need, and utilitarian policies, which maximize immediate welfare gains. Conventional wisdom suggests these policies are at odds, as Rawlsian policies are assumed to come at the cost of reducing the average social welfare, which their utilitarian counterparts directly optimize. We challenge this assumption by analyzing these policies in a sequential decision-making framework where individuals' welfare levels stochastically decay over time, and policymakers can intervene to prevent this decay. Under reasonable assumptions, we prove that interventions following Rawlsian policies can outperform utilitarian policies in the long run, even when the latter dominate in the short run. We characterize the exact conditions under which Rawlsian policies can outperform utilitarian policies. We further illustrate our theoretical findings using simulations, which highlight the risks of evaluating policies based solely on their short-term effects. Our results underscore the necessity of considering long-term horizons in designing and evaluating welfare policies; the true efficacy of even well-established policies may only emerge over time.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2503_00632
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Policy Design in Long-Run Welfare Dynamics
Wu, Jiduan
Abebe, Rediet
Hardt, Moritz
Stoica, Ana-Andreea
Computers and Society
Computer Science and Game Theory
General Economics
Economics
Improving social welfare is a complex challenge requiring policymakers to optimize objectives across multiple time horizons. Evaluating the impact of such policies presents a fundamental challenge, as those that appear suboptimal in the short run may yield significant long-term benefits. We tackle this challenge by analyzing the long-term dynamics of two prominent policy frameworks: Rawlsian policies, which prioritize those with the greatest need, and utilitarian policies, which maximize immediate welfare gains. Conventional wisdom suggests these policies are at odds, as Rawlsian policies are assumed to come at the cost of reducing the average social welfare, which their utilitarian counterparts directly optimize. We challenge this assumption by analyzing these policies in a sequential decision-making framework where individuals' welfare levels stochastically decay over time, and policymakers can intervene to prevent this decay. Under reasonable assumptions, we prove that interventions following Rawlsian policies can outperform utilitarian policies in the long run, even when the latter dominate in the short run. We characterize the exact conditions under which Rawlsian policies can outperform utilitarian policies. We further illustrate our theoretical findings using simulations, which highlight the risks of evaluating policies based solely on their short-term effects. Our results underscore the necessity of considering long-term horizons in designing and evaluating welfare policies; the true efficacy of even well-established policies may only emerge over time.
title Policy Design in Long-Run Welfare Dynamics
topic Computers and Society
Computer Science and Game Theory
General Economics
Economics
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00632