Econ Macro Ia Ib Sample
Econ Macro Ia Ib Sample
Econ Macro Ia Ib Sample
Moon vows to expand fiscal spending for new jobs, welfare. (2017, April 12). Retrieved April 25, 2017,
from http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2017/04/12/0301000000AEN20170412005200315.html
Macroeconomics Commentary
The chosen article explains Moon Jae-in’s plan to reduce unemployment and “support
corporate employees” in South Korea through an expansionary fiscal policy where he
increases expenditure by “doubling the rate of yearly increase in government’s fiscal
spending” from 3.5% to 7.0%. The expenditure is targeted to generate jobs, and improve
health-care, education and welfare in the economy, and will be facilitated using additional tax
revenues and greater allocated budget.
Aggregate demand (AD) refers to the total spending on goods and services over a period of
time and is calculated using the formula:
Diagram 1
However, the average price level increases from Pe to P1, a proportionately higher increase
than Real GDP, highlighting the opportunity cost of accelerating inflation shall this policy be
implemented. The multiplier effect makes this worse as the increase in government
expenditure leads to a greater change in income, shifting aggregate demand by more than the
change in government spending as shown below, to AD2. The resulting equilibrium c,
although closer to full employment output level, increases APL to P2, creating further
inflationary pressures in South Korea.
Diagram 2
Furthermore, since the government is forecasted to accumulate tax revenues worth “50
trillion won”, it is unlikely it finances the spending by borrowing from the non-bank private
sector. The demand for loanable funds will not increase, causing no increase in the interest
rates and thereby no crowding out effect that reduces the inflationary pressures by decreasing
aggregate demand.
Hence, although this expansionary fiscal policy has strengths, such as its direct impact on
national income compared to indirect monetary policies, accelerating economic growth and
increased employment, its inflationary consequences have detrimental effects on stakeholders
in the economy. The uncertainty caused by rapid inflation, coupled with the government’s
lessened direct spending on firms, discourages the private sector from investing in new
technologies and the economy. Although the policy creates jobs and increases disposable
income, living standards may deteriorate instead if prices rise faster than incomes, rendering
Moon Jae-in’s people-oriented approach counter-productive in the short-run. Lastly rises an
opportunity cost of allocating the government spending elsewhere, such as technological and
infrastructural improvements that can increase potential output.
Therefore, the government must increase taxes as fiscal spending increases, in order to lower
private investment and consumption in the economy by decreasing retained profits and
disposable income, somewhat countering the increase in aggregate demand caused by
increased government spending, and maintaining mild inflation. This resolves the main
opportunity cost in Moon Jae-in’s plan and also provides additional tax revenues.
Furthermore, investments in technological development are recommended because free
markets often fail to realize that labour productivity depends on the technology available to
the workforce. A faster rate of technological progress increases labour productivity,
enhancing Moon’s “people” centred growth, and also shifts the long-run aggregate supply
rightwards. While increased taxes provide short-run disincentives to workers by reducing
their direct financial remuneration, it is the optimal solution to counteract negative outcomes
of Moon’s policy and maintain price stability in the South Korean economy.