Lecture2020 SSP 9757

Supply-side
Policies
pp39-42
SR COST-CUTTING Supply-side policies to
MEASURES enhance long-run
growth potential
OBJECTIVE #1 (most important)
Stimulate actual growth & reduce
unemployment
• esp in periods of recession
• Reasoning: reduction in uCOP 
profit margins of firms ___ 
incentivise firms to ___ production
 ___ capacity utilisation  real
NY ____, moving closer to Yf
At the same time, to increase o/p,
firms employ more fops including L
 unemployment ___
pp39-42
SR COST-CUTTING
POLICIES
OBJECTIVE #2
Control inflation (in theory only,
not commonly employed towards
this end in the real world)
Reasoning:
• Suppose economy is facing
cost-push inflation
• SR cost-cutting measures 
moderate the increase uCOP 
relieves the pressure on firms
to raise the prices of final g&s
to protect their profits 
moderate the price increase
pp39-42
SR COST-CUTTING Evaluation
POLICIES Borne by gov / tax payers (#1-3)
• worsening of gov budget position
• requires gov to have sufficient past
2020 examples include:
reserves or the ability to borrow at
1. Jobs Support Scheme low-enough i/r
(wage subsidy) Artificially reduce uCOP
2. cuts in gov fees and • create dependence on gov to keep
charges (including rental down costs, reducing impetus on
firms to continue to innovate and
on gov-own ppty) improve their productivity to keep
3. FW levy waiver / rebate costs down
4. defer higher CPF • loss of dynamic efficiency 
undermine potential growth in the
contribution rates for
LR even as the cost-cutting
senior workers measures raises actual growth in the
SR
pp39-42
Does not bring about enduring SR
cost changes => hence “SR”
pp39-42
SR
pp39-42
SR COST-CUTTING
Intended as a temporary Evaluation
POLICIES
measure => hence “SR” Borne by gov / tax payers (#1-3)
SR
pp41-42
SR COST-CUTTING Supply-side policies to
POLICIES enhance long-run
growth potential
pp41-42
Supply-side policies to
enhance long-run
OBJECTIVES
1) Sustained non-inflationary
growth potential
growth over the LR
• Reasoning: expansion of
productive capacity  so long as
AD continues to increase, firms
able to meet the increase in AD
by utilising the newly-created
capacity to increase output
without intensifying competition
for fops AD0 AD1
 allow real NY to increase from
Y0 to Y1 , past the original Yf,
further to Y2 with only a
moderate price increase of P0P2
pp41-42
OBJECTIVES enhance long-run
2) Reduce likelihood of inflation
developing in the LR growth potential
• Even as AD continues to increase
 reduced risk of dd-pull
inflation (reasoning?)
• Would also reduce the risk of
cost-push inflation by reducing
the uCOP
– Where potential growth is
due to increase in factor
quantity, this increase in ss of
fop would reduce factor price, AD0 AD1
reducing uCOP
due to increase in
productivity, the same output
can be produced using less
fops, reducing uCOP
pp41-42
OBJECTIVES enhance long-run
2) Reduce likelihood of inflation
developing in the LR growth potential
• Even as AD continues to increase
 reduced risk of dd-pull
inflation (reasoning?)
• Would also reduce the risk of
Takes time for
cost-push productive
inflation capacity
by reducing
tothe uCOPover time
expand
e.g.–development
Where potentialof newgrowth is
due toacquisition
technology, increase inof factor
new skills
quantity, this increase in ss of
 notfopintended to provide
would reduce factor price, AD0 AD1
immediate relief
reducing to inflation
uCOP
problem
due to increase in
productivity, the same output
can be produced using less
fops, reducing uCOP
p43
CLASSIFICATION 1: enhance long-run
WHAT areas to target: growth potential
• Factor market
• Product market
• General incentives and
enterprise
Two ways of
CLASSIFICATION 2:
HOW to improve efficiencies / classification
reduce inefficiencies:
• Market-oriented v.s.
interventionist
(government)
Increase AS enhance long-run
and possibly AD too!
growth potential
pp44-47
1. Factor Market Supply-side policies to
(A) Increase / improve factor Q&Q enhance long-run
(B) Improve mobility of fops
growth potential
(A)
• Labour market policies
• Human capital development THREE AREAS TO TARGET
• Infrastructure development
• Promoting investment 1. Factor market**
• Promoting innovation 2. Product market
(B) 3. General incentives and
• Removal of overly-stringent Increase factor Q&Q
enterprise
 expansion of productive capacity
licensing / regulation
 Increase AS
BUT would also increase AD

• Human capital dev (possibly G)
• Spur investment (I)
• Infrastructure spending (G)
pp44-47
1. Factor Market Supply-side policies to
(A) Increase / improve factor Q&Q enhance long-run
(B) Improve mobility of fops
growth potential
(A)
• Labour market policies
• Human capital development THREE AREAS TO TARGET
• Infrastructure development
• Promoting investment 1. Factor market**
• Promoting innovation 2. Product market
(B) 3. General
Increase factorincentives
mobility and
• Removal of overly-stringent  Access to employment
enterprise
licensing / regulation opportunities
 Facilitate output expansion
 Increased efficiency in the

allocation of resources
 Key to wage, productivity and
employment growth
pp47-49
2. Product Market enhance long-run
Mkt competition to create impetus for
firms to adopt efficient practices, cut growth potential
wastes, innovate
Policies
• Privatisation THREE AREAS TO TARGET
• Deregulation 1. Factor market
• Trade liberalisation
2. Product market**
Introduce competition
3. General incentives and
 impetus of firms to innovate
and engage in R&D enterprise
 raise productivity, increase AS

• Lowering of BTE  entry of
new firms (I)
pp47-49
Greater competition among firms forces them to reduce costs, contributing to
greater efficiency in production and improving the allocation of resources, with the
possible added benefit of improving the quality of goods and services. These
Mkt benefits
competition
amount to to
create impetus
releasing for that were being used unproductively and
resources
firmsputting
to adopt
them efficient
to use inpractices, growth potential
cut activities, thus allowing potential output to
more productive
wastes, innovate
increase (outward shift of PPC or rightward shift of AS curve).
Policies
2. Product market**
Introduce competition
3. General incentives and
 impetus of firms to innovate
and engage in R&D enterprise
 raise productivity, increase AS

• Lowering of BTE  entry of
new firms (I)
pp47-49
wastes, innovate
Policies
2. Product market**
3. General
Privatisation, involving a transfer of ownership incentives
of a firm from the public and
to the private sector, can increase efficiency due to improved management and
enterprise
operation of the privatised firm. This is based on the argument that government
enterprises are often inefficient as they have bureaucratic procedures, high
administrative costs and unproductive workers, because they do not face incentives
to lower costs and maximize profits. The private sector may therefore be more
efficient than the public sector.
pp47-49
wastes, innovate
Deregulation involves the elimination or reduction of government regulation of private sector
activities, and is based on the argument that government regulation stifles competition and
Policies
increases inefficiency. There are two main types of regulation (and deregulation): economic and
• Privatisation
social.
THREE AREAS TO TARGET
• Deregulation
‘Economic regulation’ involves government control1.of prices,
Factor market
output, and other activities of firms,
offering
• Trade them protection against competition. In the last two to three decades, many countries
liberalisation
have moved toward removal of government regulations, 2. Product
and hencemarket**
economic deregulation. A
main form of deregulation has been to allow new, private firms to enter into monopolistic or
oligopolistic industries, thus forcing existing firms3. General
to face incentives
competition. The objectiveand
has been to
increase efficiency, lower costs and improve quality. Industries affected include transport,
enterprise
airlines, television broadcasting, telecommunications, natural gas, electricity, financial services
and others.
‘Social regulation’ involves protecting consumers against undesirable effects of private sector
activities (many of these involve negative externalities) in numerous areas, including food,
pharmaceutical and other product safety, worker protection against injuries, and pollution
control. In contrast to economic regulation, social regulation is being strengthened in many
countries in the interests of public safety. Some economists, however, argue that social
regulation is excessive, giving rise to costly and inefficient bureaucratic procedures, paperwork
and unnecessary government interference, and should therefore be reduced.
pp49-51
3. General incentives & Supply-side policies to
enterprise enhance long-run
Othergrowth
fiscal reformspotential
• Incentives: save, work, invest
• Enterprise: greater risk-taking include lowering taxes
on capital gains and interest income, as
Policies well as reducing business taxes.
• Fiscal reforms THREE
Consider AREAS
also labour TO
market TARGET
reforms that seek to
reduce Direct Taxation  make factor markets more competitive and
1. toFactor market
responsive
increase rewards for saving, work market forces of demand and
supply2.
by Product market
and investment - abolishing minimum wage legislation
3. General
[may mean a shift to Indirect - reducing incentives
unemployment benefits and
- reducing job security / over protection of
Taxation] workers
enterprise **
reduce transfers  increase - weakening trade (labour) union power
incentive to work
• Others
– Removal of red tape ↓ excessive regulations
– Regulatory sandboxes  ↑ ease of doing biz, ↑ MEI
 ↑ AD (SR), ↑ AS (LR)
Evaluating Supply-side Policies
(evaluate in context)
1) Time lags and potential trade-offs
Most supply-side policies, both interventionist and market-based,

work after significant time lags, making their effects on the supply side
of the economy (aggregate supply) over the longer term. This is
because the activities set into motion (increased competition, fiscal or
labour market reforms, changing incentives, investments, new human
and physical capital, R&D, and so on), need time to materialize and
affect potential output.
However, interventionist policies also have an effect on aggregate
demand over the short term. Therefore, in a recession, such policies
could have the added advantage that they can help close a
recessionary gap. Yet, if an economy is experiencing inflation, they
could contribute to destabilising the economy by adding to inflationary
pressures.
2) Growth potential
Long-term economic growth is caused by

investments in various forms of capital and new
technologies (interventionist policies),resulting in
increased productivity of labour.
In addition, economic growth is encouraged by the
development of institutions involving incentives
and the promotion of the market system and the
freer working of supply and demand, allowing the
private sector to work well.
3) Arguments in favour of ‘interventionist’ policies
• Supporters of interventionist policies argue in terms of the major

advantages of targeted government support in areas such as
investment, R&D, training and education, and so on; they argue
that the market is unlikely to provide them as needed.
• Moreover, industrial policies allow the government to support
particular industries that are held to offer the greatest possibilities
for growth in the future. They point to the experiences of a group
of Asian countries (NIEs), Asian Tigers) which achieved very high
rates of growth by use of highly interventionist policies focusing on
investments in human capital and industrial policies.
• May be more relevant to countries in the early stages of growth and
development.
4) Arguments in favour of ‘market-oriented’ policies
• Supporters of market-based policies argue that government interference in the

market may lead to inefficiencies and resource misallocation (recall section in
Market Failure), whereas reliance on the market can achieve long-term growth
while avoiding these disadvantages.
• A major argument against government intervention and industrial policies involves
the idea of government failure, according to which government interference may
result in less efficient outcomes because of the influence of political pressures,
lack of necessary information and unintended and unwanted consequences of
government actions. It is argued that governments may lack the ability to choose
the right industries to support, and incorrect choices will lead to a poor allocation
of resources.
• In addition, supporters of market-based policies note that interventionist policies
rely heavily on government spending, and use resources that might have better
alternative uses elsewhere (opportunity costs). Governments require substantial
amounts of tax revenues to be able to provide the support services, which means
high taxes and a large government sector. High taxes act as disincentives to work,
and a large government sector promotes inefficiencies.
5) Arguments surrounding incentive-related policies
• Tax cuts (incentive-related policies) are among the more controversial market-based policies,
because of their questionable effects on work, saving and growth of potential output. Tax
cuts, as we know, have both demand-side and supply-side effects. Some economists question
the strength of the supply-side effects, believing these to be small compared to the impact
on aggregate demand. For example, increases in disposable income due to cuts in personal
income taxes may result in the decision to work less if people prefer to use their extra (after-
tax) income to increase their time for leisure. Also, workers may decide to use their higher
after-tax income to consume more rather than save, in which case the tax cuts may not
significantly affect saving and investment.
• Economists disagree on whether or not incentive-related policies have worked to increase
potential output. The reason is that whatever growth has occurred has been the result of
both demand-side and supply-side effects of demand-side and supply-side policies, and it is
very difficult to detect which particular policy has been responsible for each particular effect.
6) Impact on unemployment
• It brings about a reduction of the natural rate of unemployment

(structural, frictional, seasonal). Interventionist policies involving
investments in education and training can make a direct impact on a
reduction of unemployment by: enabling workers to acquire the skills,
training and retraining necessary to meet the needs of employers
(structural unemployment) providing assistance to workers to relocate
(structural unemployment) providing information that reduces
unemployment when workers are between jobs (frictional
unemployment) or between seasons (seasonal unemployment).
• In addition, a focus on education and training of the general population
can contribute to employment creation because better-educated and
trained people are more employable / a more educated workforce can
better attract foreign investments (demand-deficient unemployment).
6) Impact on unemployment
• Market-based policies involving labour market reforms may also contribute to

reducing the structural or frictional unemployment by focusing on making the
labour market more responsive to supply and demand (perfect information, lower
wages and production costs, easier hiring and firing, etc.).
• Market-based policies that focus on encouraging competition, on the other hand,
may well increase unemployment, at least over the short term. In the case of
privatisation, as privatised firms try to make their operations more efficient, they
often try to cut costs by firing workers. Contracting out to the private sector leads to
government job losses, and job losses for the country as a whole if projects are
contracted out to firms in other lower cost countries, as is sometimes the case. In
addition, economic deregulation has frequently led to increased unemployment,
due to increased competitive pressures that cause firms to fire workers in order to
lower their costs.
• It is possible that increased unemployment on account of these policies may be
short term, and may be reversed over the longer term as the economy begins to
benefit from the broader effects of supply-side policies.
7) Impact on equity
• Interventionist policies that focus on investments in human

capital that are broadly distributed throughout the population
are likely to have positive effects on equity over the longer
term. The reason is that educated, skilled and healthy workers
are more likely to be employed and be an active and
productive part of society, with the result that income is likely
to be relatively more equally distributed.
7) Impact on equity
• Market-based policies tend to have negative effects on equity.

• Greater competition may have a negative effect if it results in some
unemployment, which involves a loss of income. Labour market reforms
involve changes in legislation and institutions that provide protection for
workers with very low incomes and with income uncertainties (minimum
wage legislation, protection against being fired, unemployment benefi ts).
Reducing protection results in lower incomes for some workers and
increased job insecurity, and contributes to increasing income inequalities.
Minimum wage legislation, for example, is intended to protect unskilled
workers on very low incomes. Unemployment benefits and job security are
especially important to people on very low incomes who have nothing to
fall back on if they are left unemployed.
8) Impact on inflation
Emphasis on lowering firms’ COP through greater
efficiency (increased competition) and lower wage costs
(improved labour market flexibility)
9) Impact on government fiscal position
Deficit may arise from spending on interventionist
policies as well as incentive-related policies (e.g. tax
cuts)
10) Impact on the environment
Deregulation or privatisation may result in externalities

Lecture2020 SSP 9757

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture2020 SSP 9757

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture2020 SSP 9757

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply-side

BUT would also increase AD

 Increased efficiency in the

BUT would also increase AD

BUT would also increase AD

Most supply-side policies, both interventionist and market-based,

Long-term economic growth is caused by

• Supporters of interventionist policies argue in terms of the major

• Supporters of market-based policies argue that government interference in the

• It brings about a reduction of the natural rate of unemployment

• Market-based policies involving labour market reforms may also contribute to

• Interventionist policies that focus on investments in human

• Market-based policies tend to have negative effects on equity.

You might also like