{"insight":{"id":"116356875","lede":"Orthodox assumptions held that providing direct cash aid without a work-requirement would discourage work. These findings, in-line with a slew of other research on unconditional cash transfers, no negative impacts on work.","slug":"a-usd1-000-increase-in-average-ctc-is-associated-with-a-0-37-hour-increase-in-wee","title":"A $1,000 increase in average CTC is associated with a 0.37 hour increase in weekly working hours for single mothers.","showTitleAsQuote":false,"epistemicStatus":"empirical","reports":[{"id":"19519421","title":"Basic Income","slug":"basic-income"}],"tags":[{"slug":"employment","name":"Employment","id":"23932807","lede":"","ledeExcerpt":"","featured":null},{"slug":"work-incentives","name":"Work Incentives","id":"100746898","lede":"

Neoclassically-informed economic models — which held sway over policymaking for at least the last 50 years — operate on the assumption that raising taxes discourages work.

\n\n

As a result, policy approaches such as unconditional cash transfers to low-income citizens, or raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy are quickly dismissed by economists, under the reasoning that unconditional cash and higher taxes both reduce work incentives.

\n\n

These assumptions have always been sites of theoretical contestation from heterodox economics, but recently, empirical evidence is mounting against these long-held assumptions. Especially around unconditional cash transfers, case studies are finding that they either have no effect on work, or even stimulate economic activity by reducing the risks to entrepreneurship.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"Neoclassically-informed economic models - which held sway over policymaking for at least the last 50 years - operate on the assumption that raising taxes discourages work, as do unconditional cash transfers.\n\nAs a result, policy approaches such as raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy are quickly dismissed by economists, under the reasoning that doing so would discourage their work, and hurt growth overall. Similarly, cash transfer programs have been tied to work requirements in order to mitigate the risk of discouraging work.\n\nThese assumptions have always been sites of theoretical contestation from heterodox economics, but recently, empirical evidence is mounting against these long-held assumptions. Especially around unconditional cash transfers, case studies are finding that they either have no effect on work, or even stimulate economic activity by reducing the risks to entrepreneurship.","featured":true},{"slug":"work-requirements","name":"Work Requirements","id":"101707762","lede":"","ledeExcerpt":"","featured":null},{"slug":"growth","name":"Growth","id":"23932836","lede":"

We define growth as the expansion of wealth in society; growth is about generating a "a bigger pie".

\n\n

Amidst debates over the merits of continued growth, we begin with the idea that all else equal, a society with growth, with more wealth, is preferable to one with less. Without growth, society becomes a zero-sum distributional game: anyone's gain is another's loss. Growth (all else equal) enables shared prosperity.

\n\n

But there is broad agreement that current measures of growth, such as GDP, are inadequate to the task of providing a suitable proxy to guide further growth. Whether devising improved measures that account for missing elements such as sustainability, equity, leisure time, or digital value, or constructing altogether new proxies (OECD's Better Life Index, for example), the conversation about how best to measure, and thus drive, equitable, regenerative, socially desirable growth is a rich field of debate.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"We define growth as the expansion of wealth in society; growth is about generating a \"a bigger pie\".\n\nAmidst debates over the merits of continued growth, we begin with the idea that *all else equal*, a society with growth, with more wealth, is preferable to one with less. Without growth, society becomes a zero-sum distributional game: anyone's gain is another's loss. Growth (all else equal) enables shared prosperity.\n\nBut there is broad agreement that current measures of growth, such as GDP, are inadequate to the task of providing a suitable proxy to guide further growth. Whether devising revised measures, such as Tyler Cowen's notion of wealth plus\" (GDP, plus measures of leisure time, household production, and environmental considerations), or constructing altogether new proxies (OECD's 'Better Life Index), the conversation about how best to measure, and thus drive, equitable, regenerative, socially desirable growth is a rich field of debate.","featured":true},{"slug":"universalism","name":"Universalism","id":"101707811","lede":"

One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens (and taxed to adjust distribution afterwards).

\n\n

Universal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.

\n\n

Targeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens.\n\nUniversal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.\n\nTargeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.","featured":true}],"sources":[{"id":"116356734","lede":"Uses a difference-in-difference design and simulation method to estimate the effects of the child tax credit on maternal labor supply. Paper finds that a $1,000 increase in average CTC is associated with a 1.1% increase in labor force participation and 0.37 hour increase in weekly working hours for single mothers.","link":"https://b6ad33f0-5c8f-4cae-8827-e0b202e9df5d.filesusr.com/ugd/727ad2_ebc7d866770149868145d8ad583cc10d.pdf","slug":"child-tax-credit-and-maternal-labor-supply","kind":"Academic Paper","title":"Child Tax Credit and Maternal Labor Supply","year":"2020-01-01","researchers":[{"id":"116356733","location":"PhD candidate, University of Connecticut","name":"Wei Zheng","seoDescription":"","slug":"wei-zheng"}]}]}}