![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
![Editing Services Awareness English-speaking]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110148/ED-Services-English.jpg"})
![Publish your Policy Brief rapidly today and inspire change for tomorrow.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110967/JournalAd-CFP-SociologyF1000.jpg"})
This paper provides an impact evaluation analysis of the 2009 Australian Household Stimulus Package, which was composed by three main cash payments: the Back to School Bonus, the Single Income Family Bonus and the Tax Bonus for Working Australians. Using panel data from the 2008 and 2009 HILDA surveys, the results show that these cash payments reduced the risk of poverty and stimulated consumption expenditure. Nonetheless, only the Back to School Bonus and the Single Income Family Bonus were really important in achieving these goals, while the Tax Bonus for Working Australians did not contribute to stimulate consumption and failed to reduce the risk of poverty. Thus, the analysis confirms the crucial role of governments to protect the most vulnerable groups avoiding a dramatic deterioration of social outcomes and favoring a fast economic recovery when interventions are timely and well-targeted.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Giovanni Andrea Cornia for his careful comments on this paper and suggestions on how to articulate it, as well as Bruce Bradbury, Jonathan Bradshaw, Sudhanshu Handa, Leonardo Menchini, Luisa Natali, Chris de Neubourg, Marco Sanfilippo and two anonymous referees for their comments. This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the author and should not be attributed to either FaHCSIA or the Melbourne Institute.