英国应对新冠肺炎的政策是否保护了家庭收入?

IF 3.6 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Journal of Economic Inequality Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-06 DOI:10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w
Mike Brewer, Iva Valentinova Tasseva
{"title":"英国应对新冠肺炎的政策是否保护了家庭收入?","authors":"Mike Brewer,&nbsp;Iva Valentinova Tasseva","doi":"10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We analyse the UK policy response to Covid-19 and its impact on household incomes in the UK in April and May 2020, using microsimulation methods. We estimate that households lost a substantial share of their net income of 6.9% on average. But policies protected household incomes to a substantial degree: compared to the drop in net income, GDP per capita fell by 18.9% between the first and second quarter of 2020. Earnings subsidies (the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) protected household finances and provided the main insurance mechanism during the crisis. Besides subsidies, Covid-related increases to state benefits, as well as the automatic stabilisers in the tax and benefit system, played an important role in mitigating the income losses. However, analysing the impact of a near-decade of austerity on the UK safety net, we find that, compared to 2011 policies, the 2020 <i>pre-Covid</i> tax-benefit policies would have been less effective in insuring incomes against the shocks. We also assess the potential distributional impact of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) instead of the Covid emergency measures and find that a UBI would have supported the incomes of different vulnerable groups but would have provided less protection to those hit hardest by the labour market shocks.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w.</p>","PeriodicalId":51559,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Inequality","volume":"19 3","pages":"433-458"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8345904/pdf/","citationCount":"60","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did the UK policy response to Covid-19 protect household incomes?\",\"authors\":\"Mike Brewer,&nbsp;Iva Valentinova Tasseva\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We analyse the UK policy response to Covid-19 and its impact on household incomes in the UK in April and May 2020, using microsimulation methods. We estimate that households lost a substantial share of their net income of 6.9% on average. But policies protected household incomes to a substantial degree: compared to the drop in net income, GDP per capita fell by 18.9% between the first and second quarter of 2020. Earnings subsidies (the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) protected household finances and provided the main insurance mechanism during the crisis. Besides subsidies, Covid-related increases to state benefits, as well as the automatic stabilisers in the tax and benefit system, played an important role in mitigating the income losses. However, analysing the impact of a near-decade of austerity on the UK safety net, we find that, compared to 2011 policies, the 2020 <i>pre-Covid</i> tax-benefit policies would have been less effective in insuring incomes against the shocks. We also assess the potential distributional impact of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) instead of the Covid emergency measures and find that a UBI would have supported the incomes of different vulnerable groups but would have provided less protection to those hit hardest by the labour market shocks.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Inequality\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"433-458\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8345904/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"60\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Inequality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Inequality","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 60

摘要

我们使用微观模拟方法分析了2020年4月和5月英国应对Covid-19的政策及其对英国家庭收入的影响。我们估计,家庭平均损失了6.9%的净收入。但政策在很大程度上保护了家庭收入:与净收入的下降相比,人均GDP在2020年第一季度和第二季度之间下降了18.9%。收入补贴(冠状病毒就业保留计划)保护了家庭财务,并在危机期间提供了主要的保险机制。除补贴外,与疫情相关的国家福利增加,以及税收和福利制度中的自动稳定器,在减轻收入损失方面发挥了重要作用。然而,在分析近十年的紧缩政策对英国社会安全网的影响后,我们发现,与2011年的政策相比,2020年新冠疫情前的税收优惠政策在保障收入免受冲击方面的效果要差一些。我们还评估了引入全民基本收入(UBI)而不是Covid紧急措施对分配的潜在影响,发现全民基本收入本可以支持不同弱势群体的收入,但对受劳动力市场冲击最严重的人提供的保护较少。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Did the UK policy response to Covid-19 protect household incomes?

We analyse the UK policy response to Covid-19 and its impact on household incomes in the UK in April and May 2020, using microsimulation methods. We estimate that households lost a substantial share of their net income of 6.9% on average. But policies protected household incomes to a substantial degree: compared to the drop in net income, GDP per capita fell by 18.9% between the first and second quarter of 2020. Earnings subsidies (the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) protected household finances and provided the main insurance mechanism during the crisis. Besides subsidies, Covid-related increases to state benefits, as well as the automatic stabilisers in the tax and benefit system, played an important role in mitigating the income losses. However, analysing the impact of a near-decade of austerity on the UK safety net, we find that, compared to 2011 policies, the 2020 pre-Covid tax-benefit policies would have been less effective in insuring incomes against the shocks. We also assess the potential distributional impact of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) instead of the Covid emergency measures and find that a UBI would have supported the incomes of different vulnerable groups but would have provided less protection to those hit hardest by the labour market shocks.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Inequality provides a forum for analysis of ''economic inequality'', broadly defined. Its scope includes: ·         Theoretical and empirical analysis·         Monetary measures of ''well-being'' such as earnings, income, consumption, and wealth; non-monetary measures such as educational achievement and health and health care; multidimensional measures·         Inequality and poverty within and between countries, and globally, and their trends over time·         Inequalities of opportunity·         Income mobility and poverty persistence·         The factor distribution of income·         Differences in ''well-being'' between socioeconomic groups, for example between men and women, generations, or ethnic groups·         The effects of inequality on macroeconomic and other phenomena, and vice versa·         Related statistical methods and data issues ·         Related policy analysis  Papers need to prioritize the ''economic inequality'' dimension. For example, papers about trade and inequality, or inequality and growth, should not primarily be about trade or growth (in which case they should target a different journal). The same is true for papers considering the inter-relationships between the income distribution and the labour market, public policy, or demography.  Officially cited as: J Econ Inequal
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信