好事太多?大流行期间澳大利亚现金转移替代率

IF 1 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Robert Breunig, Tristram Sainsbury
{"title":"好事太多?大流行期间澳大利亚现金转移替代率","authors":"Robert Breunig,&nbsp;Tristram Sainsbury","doi":"10.1111/1467-8462.12501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 the Australian federal government temporarily expanded the level of cash relief available to the working-age population through supplemental benefit payments, a wage subsidy and allowing lump sum withdrawals from private pensions. Here we examine the scope and direct distributional consequences of these measures. Two in five working-age Australians received at least one of these three forms of transfer over a 12-month window. The median recipient had close to half their pre-COVID-19 income ‘replaced’ by transfers. The programs interacted to create a two-tier welfare safety net that put in place a poverty-alleviating income floor for workers in low-earning occupations and those on unemployment benefits, and provided job certainty and greater direct income support to those with higher incomes. Aggregate weekly incomes were higher during the initial period of COVID-19 than they were pre-COVID-19. Descriptive exercises, such as this, do not provide information about the ‘impact’ of pandemic policies and are limited to what they directly measure. That noted, we raise an important question for decision-makers facing future shocks: at what point is there ‘too much of a good thing’ with crisis cash transfers?</p>","PeriodicalId":46348,"journal":{"name":"Australian Economic Review","volume":"56 1","pages":"70-90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8462.12501","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Much of a Good Thing? Australian Cash Transfer Replacement Rates During the Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Robert Breunig,&nbsp;Tristram Sainsbury\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8462.12501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 the Australian federal government temporarily expanded the level of cash relief available to the working-age population through supplemental benefit payments, a wage subsidy and allowing lump sum withdrawals from private pensions. Here we examine the scope and direct distributional consequences of these measures. Two in five working-age Australians received at least one of these three forms of transfer over a 12-month window. The median recipient had close to half their pre-COVID-19 income ‘replaced’ by transfers. The programs interacted to create a two-tier welfare safety net that put in place a poverty-alleviating income floor for workers in low-earning occupations and those on unemployment benefits, and provided job certainty and greater direct income support to those with higher incomes. Aggregate weekly incomes were higher during the initial period of COVID-19 than they were pre-COVID-19. Descriptive exercises, such as this, do not provide information about the ‘impact’ of pandemic policies and are limited to what they directly measure. That noted, we raise an important question for decision-makers facing future shocks: at what point is there ‘too much of a good thing’ with crisis cash transfers?</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Economic Review\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"70-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8462.12501\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Economic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8462.12501\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Economic Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8462.12501","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2020年2019冠状病毒病大流行的早期阶段,澳大利亚联邦政府通过补充福利支付、工资补贴和允许从私人养老金中一次性提取,暂时扩大了工作年龄人口可获得的现金救济水平。在这里,我们研究这些措施的范围和直接分配后果。五分之二处于工作年龄的澳大利亚人在12个月内至少获得了这三种形式中的一种。中位数受助人在2019冠状病毒病前的收入有近一半被转移支付“取代”。这些项目相互作用,形成了一个双层福利安全网,为低收入职业的工人和领取失业救济金的工人设定了一个减轻贫困的收入底线,并为收入较高的人提供就业确定性和更多的直接收入支持。在COVID-19初期,每周总收入高于COVID-19前。诸如此类的描述性练习不提供关于大流行政策“影响”的信息,而且仅限于它们直接衡量的内容。有鉴于此,我们向面临未来冲击的决策者提出了一个重要问题:在什么情况下,危机现金转移支付会“好事太多”?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Too Much of a Good Thing? Australian Cash Transfer Replacement Rates During the Pandemic

Too Much of a Good Thing? Australian Cash Transfer Replacement Rates During the Pandemic

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 the Australian federal government temporarily expanded the level of cash relief available to the working-age population through supplemental benefit payments, a wage subsidy and allowing lump sum withdrawals from private pensions. Here we examine the scope and direct distributional consequences of these measures. Two in five working-age Australians received at least one of these three forms of transfer over a 12-month window. The median recipient had close to half their pre-COVID-19 income ‘replaced’ by transfers. The programs interacted to create a two-tier welfare safety net that put in place a poverty-alleviating income floor for workers in low-earning occupations and those on unemployment benefits, and provided job certainty and greater direct income support to those with higher incomes. Aggregate weekly incomes were higher during the initial period of COVID-19 than they were pre-COVID-19. Descriptive exercises, such as this, do not provide information about the ‘impact’ of pandemic policies and are limited to what they directly measure. That noted, we raise an important question for decision-makers facing future shocks: at what point is there ‘too much of a good thing’ with crisis cash transfers?

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
1.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: An applied economics journal with a strong policy orientation, The Australian Economic Review publishes high-quality articles applying economic analysis to a wide range of macroeconomic and microeconomic topics relevant to both economic and social policy issues. Produced by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, it is the leading journal of its kind in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region. While it is of special interest to Australian academics, students, policy makers, and others interested in the Australian economy, the journal also considers matters of international interest.
×
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