Unemployment: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Policy responses== | ==Policy responses== | ||
Governments have been known to regard unemployment as an instrument of policy <ref> "Rising unemployment [is[ the price have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying." Norman Lamont (then United Kongdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hansard 16 May 1991[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-05-16/Orals-1.html]</ref>, but the policy objective has more often been the maintenance of [[full employment]]. It was formally adopted as a policy objective in the United States | |||
<ref>[http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/86/11/ C. J. Santoni: ''Employment Act of 1946: Some History Notes'', Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, November 1986]</ref> and the United Kingdom<ref> White Paper on Employment Policy, Cmd 6527, HMSO 1944</ref> in the 1940s. Since then it has been universally adopted as an explicit or implicit requirement of [[fiscal policy| fiscal]] and [[monetary policy|monetary policy]]. | |||
Revision as of 08:12, 23 August 2010
Policy responses
Governments have been known to regard unemployment as an instrument of policy [1], but the policy objective has more often been the maintenance of full employment. It was formally adopted as a policy objective in the United States [2] and the United Kingdom[3] in the 1940s. Since then it has been universally adopted as an explicit or implicit requirement of fiscal and monetary policy.
- ↑ "Rising unemployment [is[ the price have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying." Norman Lamont (then United Kongdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hansard 16 May 1991[1]
- ↑ C. J. Santoni: Employment Act of 1946: Some History Notes, Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, November 1986
- ↑ White Paper on Employment Policy, Cmd 6527, HMSO 1944