Is it time to reboot welfare economics? Overview

The contributions of economists have long included both positive explanations of how economic systems work and normative recommendations for how they could and should work better. In recent decades, economics has taken a strong empirical turn as well as having a greater appreciation of the importance of the complexities of real-world human behaviour, institutions, the strengths and failures of markets, and interlinkages with other systems, including politics, technology, culture and the environment. This shift has also brought greater relevance and pragmatism to normative economics. While this shift towards evidence and pragmatism has been welcome, it does not in itself answer the core question of what exactly constitutes ‘better’, and for whom, and how to manage inevitable conflicts and trade-offs in society. These have long been the core concerns of welfare economics. Yet, in the 1980s and 1990s, debates on welfare economics seemed to have become marginalised. The articles in this Fiscal Studies symposium engage with the question of how to revive normative questions as a central issue in economic scholarship.     

Combat,casualties, and compensation: Evidence from Iraq and Afghanistan

Our research examines the effect of combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan on casualties and combat exposure compensation policy. We use restricted data from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and Social Security Administration (SSA) to construct a panel of all US Active Duty service members having served at some point during the years 2001–2012. Casualties disproportionately occur at higher rates among (i) young, white, males, (ii) enlisted personnel, (iii) less educated personnel, and (iv) those in combat job types. Our estimates indicate that overall US military personnel who deployed in an individual year to Iraq or Afghanistan had a 45 per 100,000 higher probability of death than non-deployed military personnel who remained stateside. The increased fatal injury risk of deployed US military personnel is 15 times higher than the national average civilian workplace fatality rate, but roughly equal to the fatal injury risk faced in some of the most dangerous civilian occupations. Our estimates suggest a compensating wage differential equal to $861 per month would be appropriate in comparison to the current average of $1238 per month in danger pay provided to US military personnel deployed into combat zones. We recommend a revenue-neutral approach in adjusting the pay structure for military members. For example, the military should consider increasing bonuses or base pay while simultaneously decreasing danger pay by an equivalent amount. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to adjust danger pay by service or job type to reflect fatality risk more accurately.