失业风险下HANK模型中收入稳定政策的福利分析（英）

Welfare Analysis ofIncome-StabilizationPolicies in a HANK Modelwith Unemployment Risk Stefano Grancini, Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro, Danila Smirnov WP/26/76 IMF Working Papersdescribe research in progress by the author(s) and arepublished to elicit comments and to encourage debate.The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and donot necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMFmanagement. 2026APR IMF Working Paper Fiscal Affairs Department Welfare Analysis of Income-Stabilization Policies in a HANK Model with Unemployment Risk*Prepared by Stefano Grancini, Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro, Danila Smirnov Authorized for distribution by Davide FurceriApril 2026 IMF Working Papersdescribe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicitcomments and to encourage debate.The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management. ABSTRACT:Understanding how policies can stabilize household welfare during recessions requires aframework that captures household heterogeneity, unemployment risk, and general-equilibrium labor marketdynamics. We study a contractionary demand shock in a Heterogeneous-Agent New-Keynesian model withsearch-and-matching friction on the labor market (HANK–SAM) and compare the effectiveness of alternativeincome-stabilization policies. Using a common fiscal envelope, we contrast increases in unemploymentinsurance generosity, with targeted transfers to hand-to-mouth households, and universal transfers. Policyeffectiveness is assessed through the aggregate consumers’ welfare, measured in consumption-equivalentvariation units. In an economy calibrated to U.S. data, unemployment insurance yields the largest welfare gainper percentage point of fiscal cost, followed by targeted transfers, while universal transfers are the leasteffective. A temporary increase in unemployment insurance generates the highest welfare, as it combinesimmediate cash-flow support with insurance effects, disproportionally benefiting households with high marginalpropensities to consume. 1Introduction Over the past two decades, the global economy has been repeatedly hit by large andoverlapping shocks—including pandemics, wars, energy price spikes, and rapid technologicalchange—making macroeconomic volatility a defining feature of the current era (Gopinath,2022). At the same time, public finances are under growing strain, with elevated debt levels,higher interest rates, and rising spending pressures sharply limiting fiscal space in manycountries (IMF, 2025), which is further affected by economic volatility and geoeconomicfragmentation (Furceri, Prifti, et al., forthcoming). In this environment, governments canno longer rely on blunt policy tools such as untargeted fiscal stimulus to cushion economicdownturns. Moreover, economic shocks affect households unevenly, particularly through thelabor market: while some workers experience job loss and sharp income declines, othersremain employed and respond by increasing precautionary savings.Against this backdrop, this paper addresses two central questions for the design of income support policies aimed at mitigating the effects of large economic shocks—both those recentlyexperienced and those likely to recur in the future—while preserving fiscal sustainability.First,how can governments provide timely, targeted, and temporary income support to householdsand workers during severe downturns? Second, what are the distributional consequences ofalternative policy instruments, and to what extent do they effectively reach households mostin need?These questions are particularly challenging because distributional effects feed backinto aggregate demand and broader macroeconomic dynamics.In answering these questions, the paper contributes to the literature in three main ways. It first provides an economic comparison of three income-stabilization policies—unemploymentinsurance, targeted transfers to liquidity-constrained households, and universal transfers toall households—in a Heterogeneous-Agent New Keynesian Model with Search and MatchingFrictions in the Labor Market (HANK–SAM; see Ravn and Sterk, 2021, for example). Thisis done by ranking those instruments by the welfare gain generated per policy unit under acommon fiscal implementation cost equivalent to a one-percentage-point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Second, the paper computes household welfare directly from the cross-sectionof households along the full transition path returning to the equilibrium with the implementedincome-stabilization policy, rather than using aggregate utility or local approximations. Thatis essential in set-ups in which unemployment risk and financial liquidity shape householdsmarginal utilities. To our knowledge, this is the first paper that computes households’ welfarein a HANK-SAM setup. Third, the paper analyzes the distributional impac