{"title":"Did the UK policy response to Covid-19 protect household incomes?","authors":"Mike Brewer, Iva Valentinova Tasseva","doi":"10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We analyse the UK policy response to Covid-19 and its impact on household incomes in the UK in April and May 2020, using microsimulation methods. We estimate that households lost a substantial share of their net income of 6.9% on average. But policies protected household incomes to a substantial degree: compared to the drop in net income, GDP per capita fell by 18.9% between the first and second quarter of 2020. Earnings subsidies (the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) protected household finances and provided the main insurance mechanism during the crisis. Besides subsidies, Covid-related increases to state benefits, as well as the automatic stabilisers in the tax and benefit system, played an important role in mitigating the income losses. However, analysing the impact of a near-decade of austerity on the UK safety net, we find that, compared to 2011 policies, the 2020 <i>pre-Covid</i> tax-benefit policies would have been less effective in insuring incomes against the shocks. We also assess the potential distributional impact of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) instead of the Covid emergency measures and find that a UBI would have supported the incomes of different vulnerable groups but would have provided less protection to those hit hardest by the labour market shocks.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w.</p>","PeriodicalId":51559,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Inequality","volume":"19 3","pages":"433-458"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8345904/pdf/","citationCount":"60","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Inequality","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 60
Abstract
We analyse the UK policy response to Covid-19 and its impact on household incomes in the UK in April and May 2020, using microsimulation methods. We estimate that households lost a substantial share of their net income of 6.9% on average. But policies protected household incomes to a substantial degree: compared to the drop in net income, GDP per capita fell by 18.9% between the first and second quarter of 2020. Earnings subsidies (the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) protected household finances and provided the main insurance mechanism during the crisis. Besides subsidies, Covid-related increases to state benefits, as well as the automatic stabilisers in the tax and benefit system, played an important role in mitigating the income losses. However, analysing the impact of a near-decade of austerity on the UK safety net, we find that, compared to 2011 policies, the 2020 pre-Covid tax-benefit policies would have been less effective in insuring incomes against the shocks. We also assess the potential distributional impact of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) instead of the Covid emergency measures and find that a UBI would have supported the incomes of different vulnerable groups but would have provided less protection to those hit hardest by the labour market shocks.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09491-w.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Economic Inequality provides a forum for analysis of ''economic inequality'', broadly defined. Its scope includes: · Theoretical and empirical analysis· Monetary measures of ''well-being'' such as earnings, income, consumption, and wealth; non-monetary measures such as educational achievement and health and health care; multidimensional measures· Inequality and poverty within and between countries, and globally, and their trends over time· Inequalities of opportunity· Income mobility and poverty persistence· The factor distribution of income· Differences in ''well-being'' between socioeconomic groups, for example between men and women, generations, or ethnic groups· The effects of inequality on macroeconomic and other phenomena, and vice versa· Related statistical methods and data issues · Related policy analysis Papers need to prioritize the ''economic inequality'' dimension. For example, papers about trade and inequality, or inequality and growth, should not primarily be about trade or growth (in which case they should target a different journal). The same is true for papers considering the inter-relationships between the income distribution and the labour market, public policy, or demography.
Officially cited as: J Econ Inequal