Paper 4 references memorisation

Advantages of People-Based Policies

Supports labour mobility and equal opportunity

Austin et al. (2018) → targeted employment policies reduced joblessness and improved economic performance.

Chetty et al. (2016) → housing voucher programmes improved long-term outcomes for children.

Barca et al. (2012) → labour mobility can raise living standards and redistribute opportunity geographically.

🟥 Limitations of People-Based Policies

🟥 Barca et al. (2012) → “space-blind” policies ignore regional institutional differences.

Kline & Moretti (2014) → direct subsidies alone are ineffective.

Griggs et al. (2008) → skills programmes failed where local jobs were unavailable.

Rodríguez-Pose (2018) → brain drain worsens decline in lagging regions.

🟩 Advantages of Place-Based Policies

🟩 Targets local conditions and unused regional potential OECD (2011) → all regions can contribute to growth if policies fit local strengths. Rodríguez‑Pose (2018) → reduces abandonment and populist resentment. CEB (2023) → Barcelona Superblocks reduced congestion and improved productivity. Gold & Lehr (2024) → EU regional funds reduced support for populist parties. OECD (2023) → Appalachian Regional Commission reduced high-poverty counties.

🟥 Limitations of Place-Based Policies

🟥 Green (2023) → postcode lottery from uneven institutional capacity. Freedman & Neumark (2024) → enterprise zones often create deadweight loss. Firms may relocate rather than create new activity. Weak institutional capacity limits long-term effectiveness.

🟩 Advantages of Decentralisation

🟩 Improves local responsiveness and participation Downing (2014) → local officials understand regional needs better. OECD (2019) → improves allocative efficiency and participation. Okada (2022) → Japanese village revitalisation increased families and reduced ageing. Abreu & Jones (2021) → restoring autonomy improves reintegration.

🟥 Limitations of Decentralisation

🟥 Capuno (2007) → Philippines lacked trained staff. Downing (2014) → Uganda experienced corruption and embezzlement. Green (2008) → minorities excluded in Uganda decentralisation. Platteau & Gaspart (2003) → elite capture in Tanzania. Oates (1972) → spillover problems cause underinvestment.

🟩 Advantages of Universal Basic Income (UBI) — Wellbeing & Poverty Reduction

🟩 Improves wellbeing and reduces poverty Simpson et al. (2017) → Manitoba Mincome reduced hospitalisations, accidents and mental health visits. Forget (2011) → improved education and long-term health outcomes. Standing (2019) → pilots improved mental health and stability. Handa et al. (2016) → Zambia transfers increased local earnings and multiplier effects.

🟩 Improves human capital and productivity Teenagers stayed in education longer. Families afforded healthcare and nutrition. Workers rejected dangerous jobs.

🟥 Limitations of UBI — Wellbeing & Poverty Reduction

🟥 Small sample and short timeframe in Manitoba. Calnitsky & Latner (2017) → 1970s labour markets differ from today’s gig economy. Cost and political resistance limited implementation.

🟩 Advantages of UBI — Administrative Simplicity

🟩 Lower bureaucracy and fewer exclusion errors House of Commons (2006) → existing welfare systems are complex. Wispelaere & Stirton (2004) → unconditionality removes behavioural monitoring. Banerjee et al. (2019) → reduces administrative leakages in developing countries. Simpson et al. (2017) → Mincome had lower stigma and fewer errors.

🟥 Limitations of UBI — Administrative Simplicity

🟥 Banerjee et al. (2019) → LICs lack sufficient tax revenue. Gordon & Li (2009) → financing may require distortionary taxes. Khosla (2017) → may crowd out alternative poverty policies.

🟩 Advantages of UBI — Political & Social Cohesion

🟩 Reduces stigma and improves inclusion Simpson et al. (2017) → universal design reduced stigma. Standing (2019) → increased trust and autonomy. Kidd & Wylde (2011) → targeted welfare creates division. Banerjee et al. (2019) → broader eligibility lowers corruption.

🟥 Limitations of UBI — Political & Social Cohesion

🟥 Standing (2019) → Ontario pilot cancelled after political reversal. Gamage & Kamin (2019) → governments may prioritise tax cuts instead. Political opposition frames UBI as “paying people not to work.”

🟥 Limitations of UBI — Labour Supply Effects

🟥 Potential reduction in labour incentives Simpson et al. (2017) → Manitoba participants reduced work slightly. Robins (1985) → Seattle-Denver experiment reduced working hours. Concerns over long-term dependency and productivity.

🟩 Counterarguments Hum & Simpson (1993) → reductions reflected education, maternity leave and entrepreneurship. Workers invested in human capital and better working conditions.

🟩 Advantages of Land Value Tax (LVT) — Economic Efficiency

🟩 Minimises deadweight loss Dye & England (2010) → land supply is perfectly inelastic. Watling (2025) → unlike income taxes, LVT does not distort production. Tideman (1999) → efficient and neutral tax. Mason (2015) → promotes fairness and economic development.

🟥 Limitations of Land Value Tax (LVT) — Economic Efficiency

🟥 McCluskey & Franzsen (2001) → land valuation is difficult. Watling (2025) → UK attempts collapsed due to valuation costs. Planning regulations complicate land valuation.

🟩 Advantages of LVT — Urban Development & Growth

🟩 Encourages productive land use George (1879) → discourages land speculation and hoarding. Bahl (1998) → encourages dense development and reduces urban sprawl. Mirrlees et al. (2011) → unlike business rates, LVT does not punish improvements. Masterson (2022) → Harrisburg saw more construction and fewer vacant buildings.

🟥 Limitations of LVT — Urban Development & Growth

🟥 Harrisburg still experienced bankruptcy from separate debt issues. Suburban fragmentation reduced effectiveness. Political opposition from landowners and developers.

🟩 Advantages of LVT — Equity & Housing

🟩 Progressive and reduces inequality George (1879) → land wealth concentrated among the rich. Plummer (2010) → LVT more progressive than property tax. Mirrlees et al. (2011) → greater housing supply may lower rents. Rodríguez‑Pose & Storper (2019) → supports labour mobility.

🟥 Limitations of LVT — Equity & Housing

🟥 Elderly “asset-rich but cash-poor” households may struggle. Restrictive planning laws limit housing supply response. Gordon et al. (2015) → jobs and wages matter more than housing supply alone.

🟥 Limitations of LVT — Political & Administrative Resistance

🟥 Strong resistance and implementation difficulty George (1879) → challenges traditional property rights. Nekalson (2019); Hughes et al. (2018) → Pittsburgh faced backlash. Mirrlees et al. (2011) → governments avoid updating valuations. Christensen (2014) → weak enforcement can cause tax evasion.

🟩 Mitigation Modern valuation tools and digital registries improve feasibility. Hybrid systems and exemptions can reduce burdens.

🟩 Advantages of Regional Immigration Policies (RIP) — Solving Local Labour Shortages

🟩 Targets regional labour shortages directly IRCC (2017) → Canadian PNP addressed local shortages and depopulation. Seidle (2014) → provinces tailor immigration to local needs. Dustmann et al. (2010) → shortage occupation lists increase welfare gains. Migration Observatory (2017) → allows flexible local targeting. OECD (2021) → regional systems responded faster during the pandemic.

🟥 Limitations of RIP — Solving Local Labour Shortages

🟥 Rice & Quan (2023) → migrants often relocate later. Manning (2021) → labour shortages differ greatly regionally. Haas & Czaika (2013) → high administrative complexity. ONS (2015) → blurred regional boundaries create confusion.

🟩 Advantages of RIP — Economic Growth & Fiscal Benefits

🟩 Supports regional productivity and public finances Dustmann & Frattini (2014) → migrants contributed positively to UK finances. Schlos (1891) → lump of labour fallacy; migrants create jobs too. MAC (2018) → little impact on native wages or employment. Zhang et al. (2023) → Canada’s hybrid model improved regional retention.

🟥 Limitations of RIP — Economic Growth & Fiscal Benefits

🟥 MAC (2018) → shortages also caused by poor wages and conditions. Hooper (2023) → immigration only short-term solution. Structural reforms and training still required.

🟩 Advantages of National Immigration Systems

🟩 Administrative efficiency and consistency Papademetriou & Sumption (2011) → economies of scale. Chaloff & Lemaitre (2009) → uniform standards reduce confusion. Iredale (2000) → supports long-term workforce planning. Guild & Bigo (2010) → stronger border security. Hawthorne (2008) → strong national immigration brand attracts talent.

🟥 Limitations of National Immigration Systems

🟥 Manning (2021) → national averages hide local shortages. Sumption (2017) → regions differ substantially. Hainmueller & Hiscox (2010) → central governments lack local knowledge. Rodríguez‑Pose & von Berlepsch (2019) → reinforces regional inequality.

🟥 Limitations of RIP — Political & Social Constraints

🟥 Political backlash and implementation problems Commins (2026) → “Take Back Canada” protests over housing and cost of living. Haas & Czaika (2013) → implementation gaps and compliance costs. Public may perceive policies as unfair. Interest groups may influence outcomes.

🟩 Evaluation / Mitigation

Sen Capability Approach (2008) → migrants need housing, education and integration. Carling (2017) → policies should improve migrant opportunities and wellbeing. Combining RIPs with training and infrastructure improves long-term success.