Government and the Macro‑economy – Supply‑Side Policy
1. What is a Supply‑Side Policy?
A supply‑side policy is a set of government actions that increase the productive capacity of an economy. By improving the quantity, quality or efficiency of the factors of production, these policies shift the long‑run aggregate‑supply (LRAS) curve to the right, helping the economy achieve the four macro‑economic aims:
May create monopoly risk, short‑run job losses, and loss of future dividend income.
3. Glossary (Key Terminology)
Supply‑side policy: Government actions that increase the economy’s productive capacity.
LRAS (Long‑run aggregate supply): The vertical curve showing potential output when all resources are fully employed.
Privatisation: Sale or transfer of a state‑owned enterprise to private owners.
Deregulation: Removal or simplification of rules that restrict business activity.
Incentives to work and invest: Measures (tax credits, subsidies) that encourage people to supply labour or capital.
Infrastructure spending: Public investment in physical assets such as roads, ports, electricity grids.
4. Focus on Privatisation
4.1 Definition
Privatisation is the transfer of ownership and/or management of a state‑owned enterprise to the private sector. It is used as a supply‑side policy to improve efficiency, raise a one‑off cash injection for the budget, and stimulate competition.
4.2 Why Governments Privatises
Increase efficiency by exposing firms to market competition.
Generate a one‑off cash injection to reduce budget deficits.
Remove the fiscal burden of subsidising loss‑making public enterprises.
Broaden share ownership and develop capital markets.
Attract foreign direct investment (FDI) and technology transfer.
4.3 Common Forms of Privatisation
Share Issue (Public Offering): Shares are sold to the public on a stock exchange.
Management/Employee Buy‑out (MBO/EBO): Managers or workers purchase the firm.
Sale to a Strategic Investor: A private company or consortium buys the enterprise.
Franchising / Contracting‑out: The state retains ownership but contracts out operations.
4.4 Potential Economic Impacts
Macro‑economic variable
Possible effect of privatisation
Aggregate Supply (LRAS)
Higher productivity and lower costs shift LRAS rightward.
Employment
Short‑run redundancies may occur; long‑run employment can rise if the firm becomes profitable.
Government revenue
One‑off proceeds improve the fiscal balance; ongoing dividend income may fall.
Price level
Greater competition can lower consumer prices, supporting price stability.
Balance of payments
Foreign investment brings in foreign currency, improving the current‑account balance.
4.5 Worked Numerical Example – Fiscal Impact
Scenario: The government sells a state‑owned electricity company for £2 billion. The annual budget deficit before the sale is £1 billion.
Calculate the new deficit after the one‑off sale.
Solution:
Initial deficit = £1 billion.
One‑off proceeds = £2 billion.
New deficit = £1 billion – £2 billion = –£1 billion (i.e., a £1 billion surplus).
Interpretation: The sale instantly turns a deficit into a surplus, giving the government fiscal space to reduce borrowing or fund other priorities. However, future dividend income from the utility will disappear, so the long‑term fiscal impact must be re‑estimated.
4.6 LRAS Shift Diagram – Completed Example
Below is a labelled diagram that shows the right‑ward shift of LRAS after a successful privatisation.
4.7 Advantages of Privatisation
Greater operational efficiency due to profit motive.
Reduced fiscal burden on the government.
Development of capital markets and wider share ownership.
Potential for technology upgrades and managerial expertise from the private sector.
Improved service quality when competition is introduced.
One‑off cash proceeds can be used to lower the deficit or fund other priorities.
4.8 Disadvantages / Risks
Risk of monopoly power if the sector is not adequately regulated.
Potential short‑run job losses and associated social costs.
Loss of public control over essential services (e.g., water, electricity).
Possibility of asset stripping or under‑investment for profit maximisation.
One‑off fiscal gain; long‑term dividend income may decline.
Public opposition if the sale is perceived as “selling off the nation’s assets”.
4.9 Evaluation – AO3 Prompts
When answering an evaluate question, consider both sides of each issue and the degree of uncertainty.
Employment: Short‑run redundancies vs. long‑run job creation from higher productivity.
Efficiency vs. monopoly risk: Competition can drive efficiency, but without strong regulation a privatised monopoly may raise prices.
Fiscal impact: Immediate boost to the budget versus loss of future dividend revenue.
Social equity: Price caps, universal‑service obligations or targeted subsidies can mitigate adverse effects on vulnerable groups.
Macroeconomic context: In a recession a cash injection may be vital; in a boom the loss of future income could be more damaging.
4.10 Comparative Prompt – Privatisation vs. Lower Direct Taxes
“Compare the likely impact of privatisation with that of lowering direct taxes as a supply‑side tool for boosting LRAS.”
Both aim to shift LRAS rightward, but the mechanisms differ: privatisation improves firm‑level efficiency, whereas lower taxes raise incentives to work and invest.
Privatisation provides a one‑off fiscal gain; lower taxes reduce government revenue each year.
Privatisation may require strong regulation to avoid monopoly abuse; tax cuts risk widening the deficit if not offset by spending cuts.
Both can stimulate growth, but the distributional effects differ – privatisation may concentrate ownership, while tax cuts mainly benefit higher‑income earners.
4.11 Illustrative Example – UK Rail Privatisation (1990s)
The British government split British Rail into infrastructure (Network Rail) and operating companies, which were sold or franchised to private firms. Intended outcomes were higher efficiency, greater investment and better service quality. Outcomes were mixed:
Fares increased faster than inflation, raising concerns about affordability.
Safety issues highlighted the need for robust regulatory oversight.
5. Link to Other Syllabus Topics
Government macro‑economic aims: Privatisation supports growth, low unemployment, price stability (via LRAS shift) and a healthier balance of payments (through FDI).
Fiscal policy: One‑off proceeds affect the budget balance; loss of future dividend income interacts with tax‑raising decisions.
Monetary policy: A rightward LRAS shift can ease inflationary pressure, influencing the central bank’s interest‑rate stance.
External sector: Foreign investment from privatisation improves the capital account and can affect the exchange rate.
6. Key Points to Remember
Supply‑side policies aim to shift LRAS rightward; the seven measures are education & training, infrastructure spending, labour‑market reforms, lower direct taxes, deregulation, incentives to work & invest, and privatisation.
Privatisation can raise a one‑off fiscal gain, improve efficiency and attract FDI, but may create monopoly risks, short‑run job losses and loss of future dividend income.
Success depends on competition, strong regulation, transparent sale processes and social safeguards (e.g., price caps, universal‑service obligations).
When evaluating, always weigh short‑run versus long‑run effects, consider the macro‑economic context, and compare with alternative supply‑side tools.
Suggested diagram: LRAS shifting right after successful privatisation, illustrating increased productive capacity and its link to lower inflationary pressure.
Your generous donation helps us continue providing free Cambridge IGCSE & A-Level resources,
past papers, syllabus notes, revision questions, and high-quality online tutoring to students across Kenya.