How Effective are Automatic Stabilizers in Reducing Aggregate Volatility in Korea?
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
We quantified the contribution of automatic stabilizers on business cycle volatility using a heterogeneous agent New Keynesian model, which is calibrated to match important features of the Korean economy. We find that reducing unemployment benefit expenditures by 0.2% of the GDP increases its volatility by 0.24%. Reducing social transfers by the same amount increases the volatility by 1.49%. Lowering the tax rates of income tax, corporate tax, and VAT have little effect on aggregate volatility. A flat income tax increases the volatility of GDP by 3.49%. Simultaneously reducing unemployment benefit expenditures, social transfer expenditures, income tax revenue, corporate tax revenue, and VAT revenue each by 0.2% of the GDP increases the business cycle volatility by 1.56%. In the case of Korea, the stabilization effect of automatic stabilizers seems to be small.
Abstract
We quantified the contribution of automatic stabilizers on business cycle volatility using a heterogeneous agent New Keynesian model, which is calibrated to match important features of the Korean economy. We find that reducing unemployment benefit expenditures by 0.2% of the GDP increases its volatility by 0.24%. Reducing social transfers by the same amount increases the volatility by 1.49%. Lowering the tax rates of income tax, corporate tax, and VAT have little effect on aggregate volatility. A flat income tax increases the volatility of GDP by 3.49%. Simultaneously reducing unemployment benefit expenditures, social transfer expenditures, income tax revenue, corporate tax revenue, and VAT revenue each by 0.2% of the GDP increases the business cycle volatility by 1.56%. In the case of Korea, the stabilization effect of automatic stabilizers seems to be small.
참고문헌 (15)
- Bae, Byung-Ho, "Designing New BOK-DSGE Model for Economic Outlook and Policy Analysis", Monthly Survey Statistics, pp.16~52 (2014), Bank of Korea
- Developing New Keynesian Model for Analyzing Fiscal Policy, "Chee, Chunggu", Bank of Korea, ~ (2016)
- Emerging Market Business Cycle: Trend Shock Matters, "Han, Jong-Suk", ~ (2020)
- Janiak, Alexandre, "Towards a Quantitative Theory of Automatic Stabilizers: The Role of Demographics", Journal of Monetary Economics (2018)
- Developing a Small Open Economy Forecast Model with Household Financial Constraints, "Jung, Yong-Seung", National Assembly Budget Office, ~ (2018)
- Multiplier Effect of Transfer: Focusing on Household Heterogeneity, "Kang, DongIk", Korea Institute of Public Finance, ~, pp.Korea Institute of Public Finance Report 19-12 (2019)
- The Effect of the First Emergency Disaster Relief and Policy Implications, "Kim, Meeroo", KDI, ~, pp.KDI Policy Forum 281 (2020)
- Seula Kim, "Sectoral Heterogeneity in Nominal Rigidities in Korea: Implications for Monetary Policy", The Korean Economic Review, 36(1), pp.59~99 (2020), 한국경제학회[DOI]
- 이한규, "Macroeconomic Shocks and Dynamics of Labor Markets in Korea", The Korean Economic Review, 32(1), pp.101~136 (2016), 한국경제학회
- McKay, Alisdair, "The Role of Automatic Stabilizers in the U.S. Business Cycle", Econometrica, 84(1), pp.141~194 (2016)
- McKay, Alisdair, "Optimal Automatic Stabilizers", Review of Economic Studies
- Measuring Firm-level Price Rigidity: Evidence from 2012 Survey Data, "Park, Chang-Gui", Bank of Korea, ~, pp.BOK Economic Research, No. 2013-16 (2012)
- Fiscal role in economic stabilization : focused on fiscal indicators, "Park, Ki-baeg", Korea Institute of Public Finance, ~, pp.Korea Institute of Public Finance Report 02-04 (2002)
- Economic Stabilization Effect of Automatic Stabilizer, "Park, Suengjun", The Korean Association of Public Finance, ~ (2011)
- 우진희, "Policy Implications of Investment Rate Distributions in the Korean Manufacturing Sector", The Korean Economic Review, 36(2), pp.445~480 (2020), 한국경제학회[DOI]