What If Supply-Side Policies are Not Enough? The Perverse Interaction of Flexibility and Austerity

G. Dosi, M. C. Pereira, A. Roventini, M. Virgillito
{"title":"What If Supply-Side Policies are Not Enough? The Perverse Interaction of Flexibility and Austerity","authors":"G. Dosi, M. C. Pereira, A. Roventini, M. Virgillito","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3105496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this work we develop a set of labour market and fiscal policy experiments upon the labour- and credit- augmented “Schumpeter meeting Keynes” agent-based model. The labour market is declined under two institutional variants, the “Fordist” and the “Competitive” set-ups meant to capture the historical transition from the post-WWII toward the post Thatcher-Reagan period. Inside these two regimes, we study the different effects of supply-side active labour market policies (ALMPs) vs. demand-management, passive labour market ones (PLMPs). In particular, we analyse the effects of ALMPs aimed at promoting job search, and at providing training to unemployed people. Next, we compare the effects of these policies with unemployment benefits meant to sustain income and therefore aggregate demand. Considering the burden of unemployment benefits in terms of the public budget, we link such provision with the objectives of the European Stability and Growth Pact. Our results show that (i) an appropriate level of skills is not enough to sustain growth when workers face adverse labour demand; (ii) supply-side policies are not able to reverse the negative interaction between flexibility and austerity; (iii) PLMPs outperform ALMPs in reducing unemployment and workers’ skill deterioration; and (iv) demand-management policies are better suited to mitigate inequality and to sustain long-run growth.","PeriodicalId":130325,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Household (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Household (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3105496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Abstract In this work we develop a set of labour market and fiscal policy experiments upon the labour- and credit- augmented “Schumpeter meeting Keynes” agent-based model. The labour market is declined under two institutional variants, the “Fordist” and the “Competitive” set-ups meant to capture the historical transition from the post-WWII toward the post Thatcher-Reagan period. Inside these two regimes, we study the different effects of supply-side active labour market policies (ALMPs) vs. demand-management, passive labour market ones (PLMPs). In particular, we analyse the effects of ALMPs aimed at promoting job search, and at providing training to unemployed people. Next, we compare the effects of these policies with unemployment benefits meant to sustain income and therefore aggregate demand. Considering the burden of unemployment benefits in terms of the public budget, we link such provision with the objectives of the European Stability and Growth Pact. Our results show that (i) an appropriate level of skills is not enough to sustain growth when workers face adverse labour demand; (ii) supply-side policies are not able to reverse the negative interaction between flexibility and austerity; (iii) PLMPs outperform ALMPs in reducing unemployment and workers’ skill deterioration; and (iv) demand-management policies are better suited to mitigate inequality and to sustain long-run growth.
如果供给侧政策还不够怎么办?灵活与紧缩的反常互动
在这项工作中,我们在劳动力和信贷增强的“熊彼特会见凯恩斯”代理模型上开发了一套劳动力市场和财政政策实验。劳动力市场在两种制度变体下下降,即“福特主义”和“竞争性”设置,旨在捕捉从二战后到后撒切尔-里根时期的历史过渡。在这两种制度中,我们研究了供给侧主动劳动力市场政策(ALMPs)与需求管理、被动劳动力市场政策(PLMPs)的不同效果。特别是,我们分析了旨在促进求职和为失业人员提供培训的almp的效果。接下来,我们将这些政策的效果与旨在维持收入和总需求的失业救济金进行比较。考虑到失业救济金在公共预算方面的负担,我们将这种规定与《欧洲稳定与增长公约》的目标联系起来。我们的研究结果表明:(1)当工人面临不利的劳动力需求时,适当的技能水平不足以维持增长;供给侧政策无法扭转灵活性和紧缩之间的消极相互作用;(iii) plmp在减少失业和工人技能退化方面优于almp;(四)需求管理政策更适合于缓解不平等和维持长期增长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信