4 Economic Theories Behind Taiwan's Stimulus Vouchers

English Version (中文版本在下方)

Preface

Recently, news about the government’s Triple Stimulus Voucher program has dominated media coverage. The public has been curious about this innovative relief policy and discussion has been intense. Whether the vouchers will actually be effective naturally remains something only time can test. But the policy also gives us a chance to understand several economic concepts and possible effects associated with stimulus vouchers, and to think more carefully about their pros and cons.

The Design and Purpose of the Vouchers

First, we need a basic understanding of how the Triple Stimulus Voucher was designed before we can understand the economic thinking hidden inside it. The main structure of the program was that people paid NT$1,000 in cash to the government in exchange for vouchers worth NT$3,000. The vouchers were close to cash in use, but they could not be deposited into a bank account and they came with time limits and spending restrictions, such as not being usable on ecommerce platforms.

Governments issue this kind of voucher because they hope to revive damaged economic activity through fiscal policy. By using a stimulus program to increase household spending and create more money circulation through the multiplier effect, the government tries to restore normal economic activity.

Multiplier Effect

The multiplier effect describes the expansion in aggregate economic activity, or national income, created when the government raises investment or increases public spending.

Because the theoretical basis of the multiplier effect is relatively complex, I will use the money multiplier effect in the banking system as a simpler example to explain the logic.

For example, suppose A deposits NT$1,000 into a bank. If the legal reserve ratio is 25 percent, that means the bank only needs to keep 25 percent of the deposit as reserves and can use the rest more freely. So in this case, the bank only has to hold NT$250 of A’s deposit and can lend out the remaining NT$750 to someone else. That means the money circulating on the books is no longer just A’s original NT$1,000, but NT$1,000 + NT$750 = NT$1,750.

The increase in money supply here is technically the money multiplier, but it also helps us understand the general principle of the multiplier effect. The number of times money expands relative to the original amount is the multiplier, and in the example above the multiplier is 1.75. In real economies there is usually more than one round of lending, so money creation and multiplier effects can be even more pronounced.

The Triple Stimulus Voucher program made heavy use of this logic. When people spent NT$1,000 to buy NT$3,000 of vouchers, they effectively received NT$2,000 of purchasing power, which is the same as if the government had simply handed them NT$2,000 in vouchers. But because there is both the initial NT$1,000 payment and the later NT$3,000 in voucher spending, the money circulating on the books becomes NT$1,000 + NT$3,000 = NT$4,000. Compared with simply issuing NT$2,000 in vouchers, this creates twice as much monetary circulation. That said, multipliers can also contract later when taxes are collected or interest rates rise, which is also something worth paying close attention to.

Two Main Goals Behind the Voucher Design

1. Increase money liquidity

2. Increase social consumption spending

Why Not Just Give Out Cash?

If the goal is to increase social consumption spending, then the simplest and most intuitive method would be to distribute cash. But handing out cash may lead people, because of uncertainty about future economic conditions, to save it instead of spending it immediately.

That is why many scholars proposed a newer fiscal instrument: vouchers that are almost like cash but come with mild restrictions. Different countries have given such tools different names. In Japan in 1999 they were called regional revitalization vouchers, in Taiwan in 2008 they were consumer vouchers, and in Thailand in 2009 they were national rescue checks. These vouchers are similar to cash, but can only be used for consumption and come with expiration limits.

Substitution Effect

Even though this kind of policy may look well-intentioned, its real-world results are often weaker than expected. Taking Taiwan’s 2008 consumer vouchers as an example, their contribution to annual GDP was only about 0.28 to 0.43 percent, below the original estimate of 0.66 to 1 percent. One major reason for this limited effect was the substitution effect.

The substitution effect occurs when vouchers do not actually increase total spending. Instead, people simply use vouchers to buy things they had already planned to buy with cash, which weakens the policy’s effect.

According to a survey by the Council for Economic Planning and Development, the substitution rate for the 2008 consumer vouchers reached 60 to 70 percent. In other words, 60 to 70 percent of voucher spending merely paid for expenses that would have happened anyway instead of creating new demand. So although vouchers may increase current-period spending, they can also crowd out future spending.

Permanent Income Hypothesis

In addition, the American economist Milton Friedman proposed the Permanent Income Hypothesis in 1957. Economists working from this perspective argue that people’s consumption spending is determined mainly by long-term income rather than short-term changes in income, and stimulus vouchers fall into the category of short-term income changes.

Based on the Permanent Income Hypothesis, imagine that A finds NT$1,000 on the street today. A may very well use that money to buy something that otherwise would not have been purchased. But if A is rational, A will understand that this kind of opportunity does not happen every day, and will therefore tend to base consumption habits on stable and predictable long-term income instead of spending irrationally because of a temporary income fluctuation.

Ricardian Equivalence

Another relevant idea is the Ricardian equivalence proposition proposed by David Ricardo in 1817. Under this view, rational consumers already take the government’s budget and spending into account when making consumption decisions, so attempts by the government to boost the economy through fiscal deficits may simply become a meaningless waste. If overall demand in the economy does not really rise, then people will not increase their own consumption behavior.

Conclusion

Are stimulus vouchers a wasteful burden or a brilliant innovation? Can they truly stimulate consumer spending? Many variables still remain, and different schools of thought and different assumptions all provide their own explanations. Their real effect still needs time to be tested. But this policy does give us a chance to glimpse several classic concepts and hypotheses from microeconomics, macroeconomics, and monetary economics, and that alone is already quite valuable.

---

4 個「振興券」背後的經濟學理論

中文版本

前言

最近政府發放三倍振興券的新聞攻佔各媒體版面，社會大眾對創新的紓困方案充滿好奇而議論紛紛。振興券的成效如何，自然有待時間檢驗，但我們卻可藉此次機會深入認識振興券相關的經濟學名詞與可能造成的效應，藉此對其進行分析並反思利弊。

振興券的設計與目的

首先，我們必須先對此次三倍振興券的設計有初步了解，才能理解其中暗藏的經濟學思維。此次的振興券主要使用方式是，民眾用1000元的現金向政府兌換價值3000元的振興券，振興券約等於現金但不能存入銀行、且有使用期限與消費範圍（不能用於網路電商）。

政府會發放這類振興券主要都是希望由財政政策活絡原先受創的經濟，藉著振興方案帶動全民支出的增加，並透過乘數效應（Multiple Effect）造成貨幣流通的增加，恢復經濟活動的正常運作。

乘數效應

乘數效應（Multiple Effect）為形容政府擴大投資或增加公共支出時造成增加總體經濟（國民收入）的擴張效果。

由於乘數效應學理基礎過於複雜此處舉金融機構（如銀行）的貨幣乘數效果為例，試圖以較簡易方式向讀者解釋乘數關係。

舉例： A 存入 1000 元現金於銀行，此時的銀行法定準備率（Legal Deposit Reserve）為 25%，意即一筆存款銀行只需留存 25% 的現金作為應急，其於可自由銀行自行運用。故銀行此時最少可將 A 的 1000 元僅留存 250 元，剩下的 750 元皆能再貸出給其他人使用，因此目前的帳面流通貨幣數量並非 A 一開始擁有的 1000 元而已，而成為了 1000 + 750 = 1750 元。

這中間貨幣數量的增加雖為貨幣乘數的概念，但也可用來理解乘數效應的原理，其中貨幣變為原先數字的幾倍便是所謂的乘數（Multiple），在上述的例子乘數即為 1.75。而現實社會中通常不只有一次的借貸關係，因此貨幣創造（乘數關係）多會更為顯著。

此次政府的三倍振興券便很大程度地利用乘數效應，藉由民眾付出 1000 元購買 3000 元振興券的過程中，儘管與政府直接發放 2000 元振興券一樣，民眾皆獲得 2000 元的消費額度。但經由前述 1000 元的購買過程和之後 3000 元的振興券消費，帳面流通的貨幣數量為 1000 + 3000 = 4000 元，一來一往間便與政府直接提供 2000 元振興券相比多了一倍的貨幣流通量。然而在往後繳交稅收或是升息時乘數會出現緊縮現象，也是需要關心留意的現象。

從振興券的設計與目的可看出政府想達成之目的主要有兩點：

1. 增加貨幣流動性

2. 增加社會的消費支出

何不發放現金？

而為了增加社會的消費支出，最簡易的方式便是發放現金，也是民眾較容易理解的做法，但發放現金卻可能導致民眾因為對未來經濟狀況的不確定性，選擇不在當期進行消費，而是直接存入銀行。

因此許多學者想出了新的財政措施，推行一種約等於現金但增添些許限制的票券，在各個國家擁有不同名字，1999 年的日本稱為地域振興券，2008 年的台灣稱為消費券，2009 年的泰國則稱為救國支票。此種票券近似現金，但只能用於消費，且擁有時效的限制。

替代效果

**儘管此類政策看似立意良善，然而一般而言效果都遜於預期。**舉台灣 2008 年發放的消費券為例，其對於當年度 GDP 的貢獻僅為 0.280.43% 低於原本預估的 0.661%，其中造成消費券的成效有限最大的原因為消費券的替代效果（Substitution Effect）。

替代效果（Substitution Effect）產生的原因為，消費券並未增加民眾的消費支出，人們僅是用消費券來購買民眾原先便要用現金購買的商品，造成消費券的成效不彰。

根據經建會的調查，08 年消費券的替代率高達 6、7 成，即 6、7 成的消費券只是用來支付原先便會購買的費用，而非創造出新的消費需求。因此消費券實際上雖造成當期支出的增長卻排擠了往後的消費支出。

恆常所得假設

且美國經濟學家米爾頓·傅利曼（Milton Friedman）曾於 1957 年提出的恆常所得假設（Permanent Income Hypothesis），經濟學家認為人們的消費支出關乎長期的所得收入，並不會因為短期的收入變化而改變他們的消費行為，政府發放的振興券即為此處只的短期收入變動。

基於恆常所得假說（Permanent Income Hypothesis），假設今日 A 在路上撿到 1000 元，雖然他很有可能用這 1000 元去購買原本不會購買的商品，但若 A 保持理性，便會知道這樣的機會並不會天天有，因此他會傾向藉由穩定且可預期的長期收入來決定他的消費型態，而非因暫時收入的變動無節制的不理性花費。

李嘉圖等價命題

另外，根據 1817 年由英國學者大衛李嘉圖（David Ricardo）提出的李嘉圖等價命題（Ricardian equivalence proposition），理性的消費者往往在進行消費時便已將政府的預算與花費考慮進去，因此政府藉由財政赤字來提升經濟水平的舉動被稱為無意義的浪費，倘若經濟整體的需求水準未提升，民眾就不會增加自身的消費行為。

結語

振興券究竟是勞民傷財或偉大創舉，是否真能刺激民眾的消費支出？其中尚存許多變數，各個學派與假設都有各自的解釋，其真實的成效仍有待時間檢驗。但藉由這此機會，我們能一窺個體經濟學、總體經濟學、與貨幣銀行學中各自經典的名詞與假說，也不失為一樁美事。

• Tags:
• Economics
• Policy