Fiscal Stimulus in a Supply-Constrained Economy
A state government announces a $12 billion infrastructure package to be spent over three years on transport and social housing. The state economy is near full employment: unemployment is 3.8%, construction firms report labour shortages, and construction wages are rising 7% annually. The federal government is simultaneously running a surplus and the RBA has a cash rate of 4.35%. Modelling suggests the package will add 0.4 percentage points to state gross state product but also 0.3 percentage points to state CPI over the same period. The state treasurer argues the spending is justified because the projects address a housing shortfall and long-run productivity bottlenecks.
1. Assess whether this package is appropriately timed from a macroeconomic management perspective, distinguishing between the demand-side and supply-side effects.
Read the worked answer
The demand-side timing is poor. With unemployment at 3.8%, construction labour shortages and 7% construction wage growth, the economy is already at or beyond capacity. Injecting $12 billion of demand will compete for scarce labour and materials, bidding up construction costs and contributing an estimated 0.3 percentage points to state CPI. Because the federal budget is in surplus and the cash rate is restrictive, the state is effectively offsetting national macro settings - a coordination failure.
The supply-side case is stronger but slower. Social housing and transport projects can ease housing shortages and reduce congestion, raising potential output over the medium-to-long run. However, these supply benefits accrue over a decade, while the inflationary pressure arrives within the three-year spending window. The relevant judgement is whether the supply payoff justifies near-term inflation. Given that the projects address genuine bottlenecks and cannot be delivered instantly, a defensible position is to phase spending to match easing labour-market conditions and to prioritise projects with the highest supply-return per dollar. Spending everything now would be pro-cyclical and counterproductive.
2. The treasurer claims the package 'pays for itself' through productivity gains. What evidence would you need to accept this claim, and how would you test it?
Read the worked answer
The claim requires that the present value of productivity gains exceeds $12 billion plus financing costs. To test it I would need: (1) a credible estimate of the productivity uplift - for example, reduced commuting time, agglomeration effects, or lower construction costs from eased housing supply; (2) the time profile of those gains, since benefits arriving in year 15 are worth far less at a real discount rate of, say, 5%; (3) the counterfactual - what the private sector would have built without the package, since some of the 'gain' may simply be displaced activity.
Testing: compute a net present value using a social discount rate, sensitivity-test the productivity assumptions (a 0.1 percentage point productivity gain is very different from 0.5), and compare against alternative uses of the funds. A key red flag is that the state is near full employment: if the projects mainly pull resources from other productive uses, measured productivity gains may be largely reallocation rather than creation. The claim is plausible for social housing (which relieves a real constraint) but weak for projects that mostly add demand. Without a transparent cost-benefit analysis, the claim should be treated as aspirational rather than established.