Monetarism will not
guarantee solutions to equity and unemployment concerns. Likewise, it can not
resolve structural problems at hand simply because the problems are no macroeconomic,
but rather, spatial in context.
Providing efficient mass
transit systems to bridge the physical gap between work and home may be one of
the obvious solutions to immobility. However, it may not change the physical
proximity and may only lessen the travel time factor involved to a certain extent. Other much more integrated
type of approach must be thought of. For instance, the provision of affordable
housing close to where the jobs are may
be considered similar to what was
implied in the Industry Commission
Report (cited in BIE, 1994). Residential segregation should likewise
be overcome while social mix and other socially-desirable
strategies (on taxes, superannuations, training, wage flexibilities etc.) may be
included in the integrated approach.
Again, as all these are more
spatial and in the micro-level rather
than macroeconomic, there is now a shift of burden from the macroeconomist to
the planner in terms of drawing solutions to the structural unemployment
problems. In the hands of the planner, more realistic solutions based on
realistic experiences and views are expected to be conceived.
With the above conclusion,
it follows that governments need not abandon their job-creation objectives and
strategies under a Keynesian approach.
It will make more sense if instead, governments continue their interventionist
role by deliberately creating jobs while at the same time, assisting the
business/private sector in the expansion of their productive activities. There
should be a foresight that supporting the private sector will mean more people being employed in the long run.
As interventionist, the
government may be able to ensure that the new money injected through public
expenditures and private sector supports will accrue to increases in production and employment
and will not trigger inflationary effects. In other words, inflation may
still be put under control without necessarily sacrificing employment, thus, disproving the Phillips
Curve. xxx
LIST OF REFERENCES
Baddock, G. R.E. Baxter and
E. Davis (1992) “Dictionary of Economics” Penguin Group, England.
Bureau of Industry Economics
(1994) “Regional Development: Patterns and Policy Implications” Research Report No. 56, Australia
Hall, P. (1991) “Cities in
the Informational Economy”. Urban Futures, Vol. No. 5
Kalachek, E.D. (Rasmussen, D.W. and C.T. Haworth, eds.)
(1973) “The Modern City”. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., New York.
Mcconell C. (1988)
“Principles of Economics”. Prentice Hall, Australia.
Netzer, D. (1970) “Economics
and Urban Problems” Basic Books, Inc., USA.
Neutze M. (19__) “The Need for a Government role”.
Samuelson, P. (1982)
“Economics” McGraw-Hill Publishing, Inc., New York.
Stillwell, F. (1993)
“Reshaping Australia: Urban Problems and Policies” Pluto Press, Leichhardt.
Wadell, P. (1994) “Dallas: Will the Suburbanization Never Cease” Built Environment Vol. 20. No.1, Alexandrine Press, Oxford.
No comments:
Post a Comment