  In recent years, the Marginal Value of Public Funds (MVPF) has become a
popular tool for conducting cost-benefit analysis; the MVPF relies on the ratio
of willingness-to-pay for a policy divided by its net fiscal cost. The MVPF
gives policymakers important information about the equity-efficiency trade-off
that is not necessarily conveyed by absolute welfare measures. However, I show
in this paper that the usefulness of MVPF for comparative welfare analysis is
limited, because it suffers from several empirically important economic
paradoxes and statistical irregularities. There are also several practical
issues in using the MVPF to aggregate welfare across policies or across
population subgroups. To address these problems, I develop a new axiomatic
framework to construct a measure that quantifies the equity-efficiency
trade-off in a better way. I do so without compromising on the core features of
the MVPF: its unit-free property, and the main preference orderings underlying
it. My axiomatic framework delivers a unique (econo)metric that I call the
Relative Policy Value (RPV), which can be weighted to conduct both comparative
and absolute welfare analyses (or a hybrid combination thereof) and to
intuitively aggregate welfare (without encountering the issues in MVPF-based
aggregation). I also propose computationally convenient methods to make
uniformly valid statistical inferences on welfare measures. After reanalyzing
several government policies using my new econometric methods, I conclude that
there is substantial economic and statistical uncertainty about welfare of some
policies that were previously reported to have very high or even "precisely
estimated infinite" MVPF values.
