SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2009.04037

The Impact of COVID-19 and Policy Responses on Australian Income Distribution and Poverty

Abstract

This paper undertakes a near real-time analysis of the income distribution effects of the COVID-19 crisis in Australia to understand the ongoing changes in the income distribution as well as the impact of policy responses. By semi-parametrically combining incomplete observed data from three different sources, namely, the Monthly Longitudinal Labour Force Survey, the Survey of Income and Housing and the administrative payroll data, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 and the associated policy responses on the Australian income distribution between February and June 2020, covering the immediate periods before and after the initial outbreak. Our results suggest that despite the growth in unemployment, the Gini of the equalised disposable income inequality dropped by nearly 0.03 point since February. The reduction is because of the additional wage subsidies and welfare supports offered as part of the policy response, offsetting a potential surge in income inequality. Additionally, the poverty rate, which could have been doubled in the absence of the government response, also reduced by 3 to 4 percentage points. The result shows the effectiveness of temporary policy measures in maintaining both the living standards and the level of income inequality. However, the heavy reliance on the support measures raises the possibility that the changes in the income distribution may be reversed and even substantially worsened off should the measures be withdrawn.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jinjing Li, Yogi Vidyattama, Hai Anh La, Riyana Miranti, Denisa M Sologon. 2020-09-08. The Impact of COVID-19 and Policy Responses on Australian Income Distribution and Poverty. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04037

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN