refactor(script): Move Cieplinski to social protection
This commit is contained in:
parent
0d7bdb119b
commit
a63d6c4a12
1 changed files with 9 additions and 7 deletions
|
@ -861,6 +861,15 @@ For the government benefits, it finds significant variations for the different v
|
|||
The authors suggest this shows the primary channel of the programme becoming a benefit trap, with disability being determined by not working and benefits disappearing when participants enter the labour force, creating dependency to the programme as a primary barrier.
|
||||
Two limitations of the study are its small sample size due to a low response rate, and an over-representation of racial minorities, women and older persons in the sample mentioned as introducing possible downward bias for measured labour force participation rates.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- UBI -->
|
||||
<!-- TODO! Add to main findings and possibly env protection/labour regulation -->
|
||||
@Cieplinski2021 undertake a simulation study on the income inequality effects of both a policy targeting a reduction in working time and the introduction of a UBI in Italy.
|
||||
It finds that while both decrease overall income inequality, measured through Gini coefficient, they do so through different channels.
|
||||
While provision of a UBI sustains aggregate demand, thereby spreading income in a more equitable manner,
|
||||
working time reductions significantly decrease aggregate demand through lower individual income but significantly increases labour force participation and thus employment.
|
||||
It also finds that through these channels of changing aggregate demand, the environmental outcomes are oppositional, with work time reduction decreasing and UBI increasing the overall ecological footprint.
|
||||
One limitation of the study is the modelling assumption that workers will have to accept both lower income and lower consumption levels under a policy of work time reduction through stable labour market entry for the results to hold.
|
||||
|
||||
## Structural
|
||||
|
||||
### Fiscal growth and trade liberalisation
|
||||
|
@ -916,13 +925,6 @@ Additionally, the low income and price elasticity of agricultural products contr
|
|||
Consequently, the authors identify a trade-off between long-term national economic output, adversely affected by the removal of subsidies, and the reduction in rural-urban income ratios facilitated by the subsidies, albeit with diminishing contributions over time.
|
||||
Limitations of the study include the need to assume static national employment and, notably, limited generalizability due to the simulation of specific Chinese structural economic characteristics in the model.
|
||||
|
||||
@Cieplinski2021 undertake a simulation study on the income inequality effects of both a policy targeting a reduction in working time and the introduction of a UBI in Italy.
|
||||
It finds that while both decrease overall income inequality, measured through Gini coefficient, they do so through different channels.
|
||||
While provision of a UBI sustains aggregate demand, thereby spreading income in a more equitable manner,
|
||||
working time reductions significantly decrease aggregate demand through lower individual income but significantly increases labour force participation and thus employment.
|
||||
It also finds that through these channels of changing aggregate demand, the environmental outcomes are oppositional, with work time reduction decreasing and UBI increasing the overall ecological footprint.
|
||||
One limitation of the study is the modelling assumption that workers will have to accept both lower income and lower consumption levels under a policy of work time reduction through stable labour market entry for the results to hold.
|
||||
|
||||
@Go2010 model the effects of a targeted wage subsidy aimed at low- and medium-skilled workers and provided to their employers as an incentive for new job creations, looking at its effects on poverty and income inequality in South Africa.
|
||||
The study finds that, using the Gini coefficient, the overall income inequality reduced by 0.5 percentage points, which provides an insignificant outcome.
|
||||
This primarily occurs because of an overall income redistribution and especially an increase in formal employment for low- and medium-skill workers.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue