Fiscal policy and the job guarantee

dc.contributor.authorMitchell, William Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorMosler, Warren Ben_US
dc.date.accessioned2003-03-19en_US
dc.date.accessioned2004-05-19T10:21:54Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-05T08:36:44Z
dc.date.available2004-05-19T10:21:54Zen_US
dc.date.available2011-01-05T08:36:44Z
dc.date.created2001en_US
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.description.abstractDiscretionary monetary and fiscal policy decisions have meant that the Australian economy, like most others, has been prevented from generating enough jobs in the last 25 years to match the growth of the labour force. The same policy decisions have also not allowed the economy to generate enough hours of work to match the preferences of the employed. The result has been persistently high unemployment and rising levels of underemployment. Ironically, highly desirable, labor intensive projects go undone; to the detriment of all. The dominant economic orthodoxy has, since the mid-1970s, supported policymakers and politicians who have deliberately and persistently constrained their economies under the pretext that the role of policy is to ensure the economy functions at the so called natural rate of unemployment. The cumulative costs of the foregone output and unemployment are huge and dwarf the costs of alleged microeconomic of inefficiency. There is also mounting empirical evidence undermining the NAIRU approach. Though the evidence dictates the real costs of unemployment substantially outweigh any costs of inflation (and there is no strong evidence that a low inflation-environment delivers more external stability); politically, the desire to use unemployment to fight inflation has prevailed in most OECD countries. Voters have been convinced it is better to suffer high unemployment than to risk even moderate levels of inflation. As a consequence, full employment has been abandoned in most OECD countries. With this myopic NAIRU-buffer stock attack on employment, unemployment will continuously inhibit both real growth and the standards of living of the Australian people. In this paper, we argue that there is another option available; instead of mandating a buffer stock of unemployment to stabilise prices, governments can both more effectively anchor prices and maintain full employment with an open ended, fixed wage buffer stock of employed workers. We term this approach the Job Guarantee (JG) policy following earlier published work by both authors. The paper juxtaposes these two buffer stock options: employment (JG) versus unemployment (NAIRU). We confine ourselves to the macroeconomics issues only, including, (a) the impact and implications of the impact on the budget deficit; (b) the implications for inflation; and (c) the implications for the balance of payments.en_US
dc.format.extent314632 bytesen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/40582en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/40582
dc.language.isoen_AUen_US
dc.subjectinvoluntary unemploymenten_US
dc.subjectjob guaranteeen_US
dc.subjectinflationen_US
dc.subjectbuffer stocken_US
dc.titleFiscal policy and the job guaranteeen_US
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paperen_US
local.citationDiscussion Paper no.441en_US
local.contributor.affiliationANUen_US
local.contributor.affiliationCEPR, RSSSen_US
local.description.refereednoen_US
local.identifier.citationmonthdecen_US
local.identifier.citationyear2001en_US
local.identifier.eprintid987en_US
local.rights.ispublishedyesen_US

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
DP441.pdf
Size:
307.26 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format