Primary Benefits, Secondary Benefits, and the Evaluation of Small Business Assistance Programs
Primary Benefits, Secondary Benefits, and the Evaluation of Small Business Assistance Programs
复制标题
主要福利、次要福利以及小型企业援助计划的评估
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1994
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
W. C. Wood
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. C. Wood
当小企业援助计划的客户接受服务时，它以帮助和咨询的形式获得主要利益。客户可能会增加销售和就业，但只有在销售和就业对经济来说是新的情况下，它才能对经济产生真正的次级效益。在评价小企业援助时，没有充分认识到主要效益和次要效益之间的区别，因此，现有的评价不准确。本文概述了不准确的来源，并提供了如何减少这些不准确的建议。用于评估小企业援助计划有效性的指标包括客户满意度（Weinstein、Nicholls和Seaton，1992年）、效率（Lang和Golden，1989年）、学术界对大学项目的反应（Burr和所罗门，1977年）和经济影响。(1)一个突出的研究方向是使用客户在销售、就业和利润方面的增长来衡量收益和成本（罗宾逊，1982;克里斯曼、纳尔逊、霍伊和罗宾逊，1985;克里斯曼、霍伊和罗宾逊，1987）。这些评价的发展独立于成本效益分析这一专门领域的成熟文献。因此，两个主要的改进，从该文献尚未纳入评估的小企业计划：1。采用成本效益分析中现已确立的主要效益和次要效益之间的区别，以改进对主要效益的估计。2.纠正估计数，以避免计算不是经济净效益的次要效益。主要利益或直接利益是一种商品或服务给其实际接受者带来的净利益。次要或间接利益是获得主要利益的公司在就业或收入方面的收益（Sassone and Schaffer 1978）。这种区别出现在第二次世界大战之后，当时美国陆军工程兵团和美国垦务局声称有大量的次级利益来证明大型公共水利项目的合理性。例如，灌溉项目的主要效益是水对农民的净价值。次要的好处可能包括使用水的农民的新销售价值或新灌溉农场的新增就业机会。成本效益分析方面的文献已经确定，主要效益是真实的经济效益，要与提供这些效益的成本相权衡。然而，它也已经确定，一个经济体的一部分的大多数次要利益被其他地方的损失所抵消;也就是说，它们“抵消”（安德森和塞特尔，1977年，第24页）。即便如此，陆军部队和垦务局仍将大量资金用于次级收益，并且通常“对于任何得到控制机构预算的参议员和众议员支持的项目，都能熟练地产生远远超过1的收益成本比”（Frederick，1991，第40页）。早在20世纪60年代，成本-收益分析的文献就一致谴责行政机关的做法，认为这种做法是夸大收益或缩减成本，或两者兼而有之（马歇尔，1966，引自Frederick，1991，40）。特别是垦务局扭曲了效益，“声称次要效益，往往超过主要效益，大多数分析师不会接受作为合法的项目效益”（弗雷德里克，1991年，40）。安德森和塞特尔这样表达了对次级福利的共识（1977，第25页）：“社会福利被表示为直接福利加上任何非抵消性次级福利的总和。“重点是不取消次要利益，这在成本效益分析文献中被认为是罕见的。Sassone和Schaffer（1978年，第39页）补充说，“在国家成本效益分析中衡量次要效益是不必要的。“对小企业援助计划的申请很简单。…
When the client of a small business assistance program receives service, it receives a primary benefit in the form of help and consultation. The client may then increase its sales and employment -- but it generates a genuine secondary benefit to the economy only if the sales and jobs are new to the economy. The distinction between primary and secondary benefits in evaluating small business assistance has not been sufficiently appreciated, and, as a result, existing evaluations are inaccurate. This article outlines the sources of the inaccuracies and provides suggestions on how they can be reduced. Among the measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of small business assistance programs are client satisfaction (Weinstein, Nicholls, and Seaton 1992), efficiency (Lang and Golden 1989), academic reactions to college-based programs (Burr and Solomon 1977), and economic impact.(1) One prominent strand of research uses such measures as clients' increases in sales, employment and profits (Robinson 1982; Chrisman, Nelson, Hoy, and Robinson 1985; and Chrisman, Hoy, and Robinson 1987) to gauge benefits and costs. These evaluations evolved independently of a maturing literature in the specialized field of cost-benefit analysis. As a result, two major improvements from that literature have not been incorporated into evaluations of small business programs: 1. Applying the distinction between primary and secondary benefits, now well established in cost-benefit analysis, to refine estimates of primary benefits. 2. Correcting estimates to avoid counting secondary benefits which are not net benefits to the economy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BENEFITS Primary, or direct, benefits are the net benefits of a good or service to its actual recipients. Secondary, or indirect, benefits are the gains in employment or revenue among firms that receive the primary benefits (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). The distinction arose after World War II, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation were claiming large secondary benefits to justify major public water projects. The primary benefit of an irrigation project, for example, would be the net value of the water to farmers. Secondary benefits could include the value of new sales by farmers using the water or the added employment on newly irrigated farms. The literature in cost-benefit analysis has since established that primary benefits are real economic benefits, to be weighed against the cost of providing them. However, it also has established that most secondary benefits to one part of an economy are offset by losses elsewhere; that is, they "cancel out" (Anderson and Settle 1977, 24). Even so, the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation counted large amounts for secondary benefits and generally "became adept at producing benefit-cost ratios well in excess of unity for any project that had the support of the senators and representatives who controlled agency budgets" (Frederick 1991, 40). As early as the 1960s, the literature in cost-benefit analysis was unanimous in condemning agency practice for inflating benefits or deflating costs, or both (Marshall 1966, quoted in Frederick 1991, 40). The Bureau of Reclamation in particular distorted benefits "by claiming secondary benefits, often exceeding the primary benefits, that most analysts would not accept as legitimate project benefits" (Frederick 1991, 40). Anderson and Settle express the consensus on secondary benefits this way (1977, 25): "Social benefits are expressed as the sum of the direct benefits plus any noncanceling secondary benefits." The emphasis is on noncanceling secondary benefits, which in the cost-benefit analysis literature are considered rare. Sassone and Schaffer (1978, 39) add that "measurement of secondary benefits in a national cost-benefit analysis is not warranted." The application to small business assistance programs is straightforward. …