| |
Ethos Issue 3, Oct 2007
Growth with Equity: The Challenge
of Income Distribution
Kenneth Chan

The Singapore Government has also tried
to redistribute in a pro-growth way. The Workfare Bonus Scheme,
introduced as a one-time transfer in 2006, targeted the lowest
20% of income earners. Recipients had to have worked for at
least six months to be eligible for the bonus. This helped
to encourage a work-for- reward ethic rather than one seeking
handouts. However, a one-time transfer does not alter the
income distribution and keep the lower segment of incomes
up on a permanent basis, and the scheme was expanded in 2007
to become a permanent support programme known as the Workfare
Income Supplement, which operates very much like the Earned
Income Tax Credit in the US or the Working Tax Credit in the
UK.
The overriding consideration for the Singapore
Government in implementing any new redistributive measure
is to ensure that it does not undermine economic growth, erode
the work ethic, or distort incentives. In this regard, the
Government could consider measures to moderate the effects
of job volatility through some form of unemployment insurance.
As more segments of the working population become vulnerable
to downward income volatility for extended periods, a basic
unemployment insurance scheme might be a more efficient way
of providing them some form of income security. Unemployment
insurance helps workers pool their risks to fund key necessary
expenditures when faced with a sudden loss of income. A publicly
administered unemployment insurance system, integrated with
assistance in job placement, re-training and targeted welfare,
could also help the recovery of household incomes after recessions.
If so, social insurance against the risk of unemployment could
be an important component of Singapore’s social safety
net in the future.
Human Capital Development
If the Government wishes to avoid large social transfers of
the Nordic variety, its main alternative would be to invest
substantially more in human capital development. This can
be done in a variety of ways.
One would be to provide subsidies to the
lower-income households for expenditures beyond mere subsistence,
so as to allow for human capital formation. Currently, low
income households spend about 60% of their income on food,
housing and utility bills, leaving them with little for investments
in education and education-related areas. Some studies in
the US have shown that children from lower income families
develop persistent skills gap as early as the age of three
compared to those from higher-income families, should they
go without effective pre-school programmes.4
Perhaps a suitable starting point to address poverty issues
in a sustainable way would be to provide for assistance in
the form of enhanced subsidies in early childhood education.
Simultaneously, the Government could expand
existing retraining and re-skilling programmes to help workers
transit from declining sectors of the economy to the new,
faster-growing ones. This could be an important instrument
to address the possible stagnation of median wages.
CONCLUSION
In any debate over helping the low-income, we are caught in
a triangle of competing social goals: helping the affected
income groups, maintaining incentives for them to work and
strive for themselves, and keeping the programme budget affordable.
Any movement within this triangle must move away from at least
one goal. Yet societies care not just about the size of the
economy, but also social peace and cohesion. Finding the right
blend of pro-growth policies and redistributive measures will
be critical for sustaining the Singapore story of growth with
equity.
Kenneth Chan is Manager in the Strategy
Unit, Strategic Policy Office of the Prime Minister’s
Office. He first started researching socio-economic issues
during the 2005 National Scenarios project, which included
developments in the income distribution, the impact of new
media on a participative citizenry and the evolution of the
Singapore identity with increased immigration. He is also
interested in how companies selling to "bottom-of-pyramid"
markets will impact ASEAN in the future.
| NOTES |
| 01. |
Department of Statistics, Key
Household Income Trends (Singapore: Ministry of
Trade and Industry, 2006). |
| 02. |
The Economist noted that since
2000, real wages for the median US worker rose only
about 1.5% even after accounting for health and pension
benefits, even though productivity grew by as much as
15%. |
| 03. |
Lindert, Peter H., Growing Public:
Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth
Century (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004). |
04. |
Barnett, W. Steven and Belfield, Clive
R., "Early Childhood Development and Social Mobility,"
(National Institute for Early Education Research, NIEER
Policy Report, October 2006), http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=152. |
I |
|