What is Abenomics?

Abenomics is the nickname for the economic policies set out for Japan in 2012 when prime minister Shinzo Abe came into power for a second time. Abenomics involved increasing the nation’s money supply, boosting government spending, and enacting reforms to make the Japanese economy more competitive. The Economist outlined the program as a “mix of reflation, government spending, and a growth strategy designed to jolt the economy out of suspended animation that has gripped it for more than two decades.”

Understanding Abenomics

Abenomics refers to the economic policies of a particular politician, in the same way, that Reaganomics or Clintonomics does. Abenomics was promoted as a way to shake Japan’s economy out of a period of minimal growth and overall deflation. Japan’s economic troubles dated back to the 90s, also known as the Lost Decade. It was a period of marked economic stagnation in Japan, following a massive real estate bubble burst in the 1980s, and Japan’s asset price bubble burst in the early 90s.

The Japanese government responded to the economic fallout by running massive budget deficits to fund pubic works projects. In 1998, economist Paul Krugman argued in a paper titled “Japan’s Trap” that Japan could raise inflation expectations by committing to an irresponsible monetary policy for a period of time, thereby cutting long-term interest rates and promoting the spending needed to break out of economic stagnation. 

Japan adopted some of Krugman’s recommendations, expanding the money supply domestically and keeping interest rates remarkably low. This facilitated an economic recovery, beginning in 2005, but it ultimately did not stop deflation. 

In July 2006, Japan ended its zero-rate policy as Abe took power in his first term as prime minister. Abe would resign as prime minister suddenly in 2007, but continued to serve in the ruling party. Though still having the lowest interest rates in the world, Japan could not stop deflation. The country saw the Nikkei 225 drop more than 50% between the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2009. In part due to the economic malaise Japan seemed unable to shake, Abe’s party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP), lost power to the Democratic Party of Japan.

Abenomics and the Three Arrows

Abe began a second term in December 2012. Soon after resuming office, he launched his Abenomics plan to bolster Japan’s stagnant economy. In a speech following his election, Abe announced that he and his cabinet would “implement bold monetary policy, flexible fiscal policy and a growth strategy that encourages private investment, and with these three pillars, achieve results.”

Abe’s program consisted of three “arrows.” The first was printing additional currency – between 60 trillion yen to 70 trillion yen – to make Japanese exports more attractive and generate modest inflation—roughly 2%. The second arrow was new government spending programs to stimulate demand and consumption—to stimulate short-term growth, and to achieve a budget surplus over the long term. 

The third component of Abenomics was more complex—a reform of various regulations to make Japanese industries more competitive and to encourage investment in and from the private sector. This included corporate governance reform, easing of restrictions on hiring foreign staff in special economic zones, making it easier for companies to fire ineffective workers, liberalizing the health sector, and implementing measures the help domestic and foreign entrepreneurs. The proposed legislation also aimed to restructure the utility and pharmaceutical industries and modernize the agricultural sector. Most important, perhaps, was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was described by economist Yoshizaki Tatsuhiko as potentially the “linchpin of Abe’s economic revitalization strategy,” by making Japan more competitive through free trade.

Did Abenomics Work?

Like all Japanese economic policy since the bubble burst, Abenomics has worked well at times and stalled at others. Inflation targets have been met and Japan’s unemployment rate is more than 2% lower than when Abe came to power for the second time. Similarly, nominal GDP has increased and corporate pre-tax profit and tax revenues have both seen significant rises. However, Japan’s periods of success have been halted at times by global economic forces and the country’s most significant economic problem – a rapidly aging population – has increasingly taken the forefront.

What Is Ability-To-Pay Taxation?

The ability-to-pay philosophy of taxation maintains that taxes should be levied according to a taxpayer’s ability to pay. The idea is that people, businesses, and corporations with higher incomes can and should pay more in taxes. 

Understanding the Ability-To-Pay Principle

Ability-to-pay taxation argues that those who earn higher incomes should pay a greater percentage of those incomes in taxes compared with those who earn less. For example, in 2020 individuals in the United States with taxable income less than $9,875 faced a 10% income tax rate, while those with taxable income of more than $518,000 faced a rate of 37%, the nation’s top individual rate. Earnings between those amounts face tax rates as set by income brackets.

The idea underlying ability-to-pay taxation is that everyone should make an equal sacrifice in paying taxes, and because people with more money effectively have less use for a given dollar, paying more of them in taxes does not impose a greater burden. Think of it this way: To a person with earns $1 million a year, $10,000 will make very little difference in their life, while it will make a big difference to a person earning only $60,000 a year.

History of Ability-to-Pay Taxation

The idea of a progressive income tax—that is, that people with the ability to pay more should pay a higher percentage of their income—is centuries old. In fact, it was espoused by none other than Adam Smith, considered the father of economics, in 1776.

Smith wrote: “The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as near as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Arguments for Progressive Taxation

Advocates of ability-to-pay taxation argue that those who have benefitted most from the nation’s way of life in the form of higher incomes and greater wealth can afford and should be obligated to give back a little more to keep the system running.

The argument is that the society that government tax revenue has helped build—infrastructure such as highways and fiberoptic communications networks, a strong military, public schools, a free market system—provide the environment in which their success is possible and in which they can continue to enjoy that success.

Criticism of Ability-to-Pay Taxation

Critics of progressive taxation argue that it is fundamentally unfair. They say it penalizes hard work and success and reduces the incentive to make more money. Many argue that everyone should pay the same income-tax rate—a “flat tax”—to make the system more equitable.

Progressive Taxation and Inequality

While the U.S. still maintains a progressive tax system, tax rates for the rich have plummeted over the past several decades. When President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the highest income tax bracket for individuals was 70%. In 2020, the top rate for incomes is 37%. Meanwhile, inequality has reached levels not seen in at least a century. The top 1% now holds more wealth than the bottom 90%.

What Is Affirmative Action?

The term affirmative action refers to a policy aimed at increasing workplace and educational opportunities for people who are underrepresented in various areas of our society.

Affirmative action focuses on demographics with historically low representation in leadership, professional, and academic roles. It is often considered a means of countering discrimination against particular groups.

Affirmative action programs are commonly implemented by businesses and governments by taking individuals’ race, sex, religion, or national origin into account when hiring.

How Affirmative Action Works

The main purpose of affirmative action is to diversify various parts of society. It is a government-backed policy that was developed to provide inadequately represented groups of people with access to opportunities in academia, the private workforce, and government jobs.

These opportunities include admission to schools and jobs in professional positions, as well as access to housing and financing.

History and Implementation

The affirmative action policy rose to prominence in the United States in the 1960s as a way to promote equal opportunity for various segments of society. The policy was developed to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sought to eliminate discrimination.

Early implementations of affirmative action largely focused on halting the continued social segregation of minorities and other disadvantaged individuals from institutions and opportunities.

Despite legislation that outlawed discrimination practices in the U.S., tangible change in the status quo was not immediate.

In more recent years, campaigns have expanded to make organizations and institutions even more inclusive by pushing for greater gender diversity. Newer policies are also aimed at providing more access to opportunities for covered veterans and people with disabilities.

Elements of Affirmative Action

Efforts to stimulate change can take the form of financial assistance such as grants, scholarships, and other support earmarked to help with access to higher education opportunities.

In addition, hiring practices may be structured to require the inclusion of diverse candidates for consideration for job openings. Government agencies may mandate that companies and institutions populate their ranks with a minimum percentage of qualified professionals from varying ethnicities, genders, and cultures.

Failure to meet such requirements could disqualify institutions from receiving government funding or being able to compete for public contracts.

Examples of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action has been put to work since the 1960s, despite lack of progress at times and rulings by legal authorities such as the Supreme Court that have hindered it. Here are some examples of the policy in action.

• In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246. It required that all government contractors and subcontractors expand job opportunities for minorities. It also established the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) to enforce the order.
• In 1970, the Labor Department ordered and authorized flexible goals and timetables to address the underutilization of minorities by federal contractors. In 1971, women were included in the order.
• In 1973, President Richard M. Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It required agencies to submit an affirmative action plan to the EEOC that detailed the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities.
• In 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12432. It required every federal agency with substantial procurement or grant-making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise development plan.
• In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. A year later, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
• In 1998, the U. S. House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate stopped attempts to eliminate specific affirmative action programs. Both houses of Congress prohibited the abolishment of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. In addition, the House refused to allow the elimination of affirmative action in admissions in higher education programs funded through the Higher Education Act.
• In 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that dozens of major U.S. companies including Apple, Alphabet, American Airlines, and General Motors were urging the Supreme Court to uphold the continued use affirmative action policies in college admissions. They asserted that greater diversity on college campuses contributed to ongoing innovation in commerce and successful business endeavors.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Affirmative Action

The implementation and continued use of affirmative action policies have drawn strong support as well as staunch criticism.

Advantages

An obvious benefit of affirmative action is the opportunities they provide to people who otherwise might not have them. These opportunities include access to education for students who may be disadvantaged and career advancement for employees who may be blocked from rising up the corporate ladder.

Proponents of affirmative action say that the effort must continue because of the low percentages of diversity in positions of authority and in the media, as well as limited acknowledgment of the achievements of marginalized or unrepresented groups.

Disadvantages

Opponents of affirmative action frequently call these efforts a collective failure. They cite as evidence the tiny changes to the status quo after decades of effort. The cost of such programs, coupled with a belief that affirmative action forces the populace to make unwarranted accommodations, drives a significant part of the opposition.

Certain individuals believe that there is little to no bias in society. They argue that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination, which can often lead to qualified candidates being overlooked in academics and the workplace in favor of less qualified candidates who meet policy standards.

Affirmative Action Statistics

Affirmative action is a very controversial topic and often leads to heated debates between those who support it and people who feel it doesn’t benefit society. Is there a way to quantify how people feel and how it’s working?

According to a Gallup poll, more than half of Americans (61%) believe in affirmative action policies. This level of support has increased since the last poll, where only 47% to 50% of individuals thought affirmative action was necessary. This increase in support is especially important, given the active issues surrounding race and identity in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Many Americans feel positive about diversity. They are comfortable with the makeup of their communities, saying diversity positively impacts society as a whole.

There is some divide when it comes to identifying race and ethnicity for purposes of hiring. In fact, about 74% of individuals feel that a candidate’s racial or ethnic background shouldn’t be considered when hiring or promoting them. These activities should only be based on someone’s merit and qualifications.