The Structure and Incentives of a COVID related Emergency Wage Subsidy
AI-generated Key Points
- COVID-19 pandemic caused significant economic shock worldwide
- Many liberal welfare states introduced temporary wage subsidies to protect workers' earnings and employment
- Irish COVID-19 wage subsidy scheme (CWS) was reformed five times during the crisis
- Simulated datasets were used to assess the structure and incentives of the CWS under five designs
- Pro-rata designs support middle earners more, while flat-rate designs support low earners more
- All designs show evidence for strong work disincentives driven primarily by generous unemployment payments and work-related costs
- Impact of design on income inequality depends on payment generosity; earnings-related pro-rata designs associated with higher market earnings inequality
- Transaction costs and political considerations behind design changes motivated by reform rationale and reintegration of CWS into permanent wage subsidies based on sectorial turnover rules could offer enhanced protection to middle-and high earners while reducing uncertainty regarding future reform needs or politically motivated designs.
Authors: Jules Linden, Cathal O'Donoghue, Denisa M. Sologon
Abstract: During recent crisis, wage subsidies played a major role in sheltering firms and households from economic shocks. During COVID-19, most workers were affected and many liberal welfare states introduced new temporary wage subsidies to protected workers' earnings and employment (OECD, 2021). New wage subsidies marked a departure from the structure of traditional income support payments and required reform. This paper uses simulated datasets to assess the structure and incentives of the Irish COVID-19 wage subsidy scheme (CWS) under five designs. We use a nowcasting approach to update 2017 microdata, producing a near real time picture of the labour market at the peak of the crisis. Using microsimulation modelling, we assess the impact of different designs on income replacement, work incentives and income inequality. Our findings suggest that pro rata designs support middle earners more and flat rate designs support low earners more. We find evidence for strong work disincentives under all designs, though flat rate designs perform better. Disincentives are primarily driven by generous unemployment payments and work related costs. The impact of design on income inequality depends on the generosity of payments. Earnings related pro rata designs were associated to higher market earnings inequality. The difference in inequality levels falls once benefits, taxes and work related costs are considered. In our discussion, we turn to transaction costs, the rationale for reform and reintegration of CWS. We find some support for the claim that design changes were motivated by political considerations. We suggest that establishing permanent wage subsidies based on sectorial turnover rules could offer enhanced protection to middle-and high-earners and reduce uncertainty, the need for reform, and the risk of politically motivated designs.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.