Are incentives irrelevant?

Finland has begun an experiment where it will pay unemployed citizens a fixed monthly sum. The idea is based on a 'universal basic income'. Other countries are going to start similar experiments.

The idea of a basic minimum income, regardless of economic activity, is one that is very attractive to those who are concerned with addressing inequality. It is controversial because opponents say it will simply encourage idleness.

Traditional supply side economic theory says that if the difference between in-work and out-of-work income is too small then there is too little incentive to take up job offers. People remain unemployed until a better offer comes along. When the difference is large then the unemployed jump at a job offer, therefore governments have cut the real value of the unemployment benefit sine the 1980's.

Supporters say that it is more important to deal with inequality which has risen continuously since the 1980s. This was not promised by supply side theory which said that the initial the rise in inequality would be reversed due to faster economic growth. (Unkindly some say this is the 'trickle down' effect, but actually they envisaged faster productivity growth and so higher wages throughout the economy.)

Others point to the fact that the system is very cheap to administer. There are no tests, no adjustments (even if the recipient finds work) and so minimal clerical effort. Therefore government expenditure is partly offset by lower costs of administration.

It's something you may want to watch.

The Guardian covers the story here

The new VCE study design has downplayed the study of inequality. However at IB it is an important economic goal. There is an IA in this one that looks at the effects on LRAS and AD. Read the article carefully, I have not put in every important detail here.