Prescribing the Right Remedy for Unemployment

Prescribing the Right Remedy for Unemployment
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 5, 2009

Soon after the New Year, the government hastily launched its "educational voucher" program. The vouchers are intended to encourage young people who have been unemployed for many months to return to college or to technical institutes. They would receive both academic credit and subsidies. Educational vouchers would in effect be government allowances. It is generally believed that recently graduated twenty somethings are most likely to benefit from such a program. Once people are married and have children, economic pressures usually prevent them from returning to school.

Meanwhile the Executive Yuan has introduced a variety of plans to combat unemployment. Various ministries would draw up programs and project the number of jobs they would provide. These would include jobs as EPD resource recovery workers, Department of Health dengue fever prevention and control workers, Ministry of Education field workers, Department of the Interior landscape beautification and small scale construction project workers. A few days ago at the KMT's Chinese New Year party, President Ma and others expressed their approval of these measures. But a wave of outside criticism has cast doubt on its potential efficacy.

The government's task is to settle down, determine the root cause of unemployment on Taiwan, then decide how to solve it. Policy planners should ask themselves, "Why has unemployment surged recently? How can we moderate it?" They should refrain from prescribing remedies willy nilly.

Let's look at the government's educational vouchers program. Labor statistics divide adults into three categories. One. Employed workers, Two. Unemployed workers. Three. Non-workers. Employed workers plus unemployed workers are referred to as the work force. Unemployment is calculated by dividing unemployed workers by the labor force. Housewives, students, retirees and those who are idle but not seeking work are referred to as non-workers. The government's educational vouchers would encourage young people to return to college for further education. In effect they would encourage many people to withdraw from the labor force and become students or other non-workers. Statistically such an arrangement would reduce the unemployment rate. But it would hardly be what the public has in mind when talking about reducing unemployment.

Those most likely to return to college for further education would probably be twenty somethings. They may be unmarried, living with their parents, and feel less pressured to make a living. For them to return to school during a recession is not wrong per se. But these people are not really those who need rescuing. Those who need rescuing are married forty and fifty somethings with substantial monthly expenditures who cannot afford to be without an income. Their unemployment would result in social problems, even domestic tragedies. Therefore, social compassion, social assistance, and social security ought to rescue these people. These middle-aged unemployed workers will find it difficult to abandon their families and return to school. The educational vouchers program will cost 5.4 billion in taxpayer money, but will do nothing for those most in need of a helping hand, those who must support a family. As a number of observers have noted, educational vouchers merely rescue the government's unemployment figures, not the unemployed. If one thinks of a depression as a severe foot disease, then educational vouchers do not treat the disease. They merely tell the patients to stop walking. As long as they don't walk, their feet won't hurt, and the government can pretend that no one is afflicted with a foot disease.

Now let's look at the various ministries' programs for combatting unemployment. When the Executive Yuan grouped job opportunities along ministerial lines, it made the mistake of thinking in supply side terms. Unemployment on Taiwan is not not evenly distributed among the various industries. This is a natural consequence of East Asian economies' export-driven orientation. To combat today's massive unemployment, one must adopt a bottom-up approach. First the government must understand the imbalance between supply and demand in the marketplace and industry. Then the Ministry of Economic Affairs and other ministries must provide specific remedies. These remedies need not be drawn up from scratch. For example, they could be fast-tracked or modified versions of the "i-Taiwan Project." Such a demand side policy would be the correct policy. For central ministries and departments to prescribe top-down landscape beautification programs and environmental cleanup programs, in the hope of alleviating unemployment, is akin to manufacturing a product and attempting to sell it to consumers without first doing market research. Such an thoughtless approach is unlikely to be successful.

A number of financial publications have evaluated various governments' responses to the financial crisis. Many experts feel the best way to reduce unemployment during a recession is to invest in infrastructure. This creates a solid foundation for future growth. But so far we have seen only one short-term, money-burning government program after another. We have not seen any aggressive programs prescribing the right cure for the disease. Still less have we seen any projections of where our economy will be in three to five years. President Ma would like the public to give Executive Yuan Vice Minister Chiu Chen-hsiung's financial experts a big hand. Positive encouragement is fine as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice the people can applaud until their palms are red. It still won't reduce the pain in their feet.

中國時報 　2009.02.05
搶救失業 終究要對症下藥
中時社論



政府新春開張沒多久，就急急忙忙推出所謂「教育券」方案，要鼓勵失業幾個月的年青人回大專院校充電，對他們提供學分費的補助。教育券在本質上是一種政府提供的學分津貼，一般認為只有剛畢業不久的七年級生比較可能受用；一旦成家育子，則家庭開支的壓力將逼得勞工無法享受「無薪充電」。

另一方面，行政院也推出一籮筐的搶救失業計畫，由各部會署提出種種方案提供雇用量，包括環保署的資源回收工、衛生署的登革熱防治員、教育部的外派訪員、內政部的景觀拉皮小工程等等。國民黨日前新春團拜時，馬總統等對這些措施多所肯定，但無奈外界批評聲浪不少，未來成效也不被看好。

我們認為，政府當務之急，就是靜下心來好好檢視一下台灣面臨失業問題的本質及其解決之道，請政策規畫者問問自己：「為什麼最近失業率會暴增？要怎麼舒緩這些失業？」切忌急衝擅動而推出倉卒的雜湯濁藥。

先看政府的教育券政策。在勞動統計上，社會成年人可以概分為三群，其一是就業人口，其二是失業人口，其三是非勞動力。就業與失業人口的總和，稱之為勞動力。所謂失業率，就是失業人口除以勞動力。至於非勞動力，則是指家庭主婦、學生、退休賦閒在家等「不去市場找工作」的人。政府以教育券鼓勵年輕人回大學充電，就是在促使許多人退出勞動市場、重新歸類為學生等非勞動力。就統計數字來看，這樣的安排當然會使失業率降低，但這恐怕與社會各界所期待的搶救失業，有相當的距離。

就概念上看，比較可能回大學充電的，大概是三十歲不到的年輕人。他們也許未婚、也許與父母同住，生活比較沒有壓力，不景氣的時候回學校蟄伏一兩年本無不可。但換個角度來講，這些人原本就不是需要「搶救」的失業群。之所以社會要求政府搶救失業，是指那些四、五十歲、已婚、有相當經常性支出、不能沒有收入的群體，他們的失業將產生許多社會問題甚至悲劇。因此，在社會關懷、社會救助、社會保險的理念下，才會期待對這些人有所搶救。但是，這些中年失業者卻難以放棄家庭、重回學校。教育券政策用五十四億的人民納稅錢，卻未能幫助那些亟需伸予援手的家計負擔中堅者。誠如許多輿論所言，教育券是在救失業率，不是在救失業！經濟蕭條就像是病人得了嚴重足疾，但教育券政策卻不是開藥治療足疾，而是叫病人不要走路；只要不走路，腳就不太會痛，自然也就無所謂足疾。

再談各部會所提的搶救失業方案。當行政院依其部會編組而分配就業額度時，其實出發點就已經有「生產者導向」的扭曲。台灣的失業不均勻地散布在各個產業，這是東亞諸國著重出口導向的自然結果。如果要救當前特殊的大量失業，當然就該由下而上去構思計畫：先評估市場與產業供需失調的情況，再由經濟部及其他部會署規畫特定的補救計畫。這些計畫未必完全是從零開始，卻可能是將愛台十二建設中若干相關計畫挪前或加速或修改，就自然能有所銜接─這才是「消費者導向」的正確政策構思。由中央部會署由上而下地開列一些景觀拉皮、環境清潔等工作，期待失業者投入，則就像是廠商先生產產品，而後再強行推銷給消費者一樣，在概念上失之懶惰，在效果上也會大打折扣。

最近許多國際財經刊物，都已經針對世界各國在金融海嘯期間的財經因應政策有所評比。許多國際專家都認為，最好的搶救失業政策，就是在經濟衰退期間吸引勞動力投入基礎建設，以待未來健康地重新出發。但遺憾的是，到目前為止，我們只看到一波接一波的短期政府支出燒錢方案，卻看不到多少對症下藥的積極建設規畫，更不用說三、五年後台灣的經濟遠景了。馬總統希望大家給邱正雄副院長所領導的財經內閣多鼓鼓掌，在精神上我們完全同意；但在實務上，人民即使雙手用力鼓掌、拍得紅腫，也不能減輕足疾的疼痛。