What I am about to say may not be very politically correct. It may even sound heartless.
The “Stimulus” Package (or as some like to refer to it, the “We’re All Socialists Now” Act of 2009) includes a hefty increase in unemployment benefits. It increases weekly benefits by $25 and extends coverage for those scheduled to run out in March through the end of 2009. While that may sound like an uncontroversial idea on the surface, it may hinder our long-term recovery.
In a soon to be published article by economists Maria Minniti, Professor and Bobby B. Lyle Chair in Entrepreneurship at SMU Cox School of Business, and her German co-author Philipp Koellinger find that increasing unemployment benefits also reduces the incentive of people to start a new business. In fact, their study reveals that unemployment benefits reduce start-ups not only from people that lack other employment options (often called necessity-entrepreneurs), but also from people who plan to start innovative ventures with high growth potential for the future. This is particularly worrisome given the “multiplier effect” high potential start ups have on the economy.
Koellinger and Minniti’s analysis showed that increasing unemployment benefits by 0.1 percent of GDP reduces the share of entrepreneurs in the population by roughly 3%. The USA currently spends about 0.3% of GDP on unemployment benefits and 7.7% of the adult population are currently in the process of starting a new business. If the government were to decide raising unemployment benefits to 0.4% of GDP, the rate of entrepreneurs would decrease from roughly 7.7% to 7.4%. Although that may not sound like a big number, given a population of 200 million, it would mean a loss of 600,000 start-ups. On average, every new entrepreneur employs 2 other people. Hence, an additional 1,200,000 jobs would be lost – which is roughly the adult population of Houston. These are lower bound estimates that do not take other indirect effects of unemployment benefits on the number of jobs into account, such as established firms hiring less because of decreased sales or higher social security costs.
Are unemployment benefits bad? Koellinger and Minniti’s position is that unemployment benefits are important, but governments and voters should take the indirect costs of these benefits into account when deciding how generous they want their unemployment benefits to be. I agree. The unintended consequences may leave us much worse off over the intermediate and long term.
Recessions tend to foster entrepreneurs, albeit some of them more “accidental” entrepreneurs than others. We may be greatly reducing the number of these new ventures during the current recession through expansion of unemployment benefits.