IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing support for those on lower incomes: is the Saving Gateway the best policy response?


  • Carl Emmerson

    () (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

  • Matthew Wakefield

    () (Institute for Fiscal Studies)


The government is committed to introducing a new savings account for people on lower incomes. This will provide a strong incentive for eligible individuals to save, or at least to hold financial assets, in these accounts. This paper describes possible rationales for this government intervention. It then presents new evidence on the characteristics of people with lower incomes and finds that many already have some financial assets, while those who do not often appear to have good reasons for why they may not want to be currently saving. The result is that the proposed Saving Gateway will be extremely difficult to target at those who might benefit in the way the government hopes. The danger is that the policy will be expensive relative to the number of genuine new savers and savings that it generates.

Suggested Citation

  • Carl Emmerson & Matthew Wakefield, 2003. "Increasing support for those on lower incomes: is the Saving Gateway the best policy response?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 24(2), pages 167-195, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:24:y:2003:i:2:p:167-195

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. AndréS GóMez-Lobo & Stefan Szymanski, 2001. "A Law of Large Numbers: Bidding and Compulsory Competitive Tendering for Refuse Collection Contracts," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(1), pages 105-113, February.
    2. Stefan Szymanski, 1993. "Cheap rubbish? Competitive tendering and contracting out in refuse collection, 1981-88," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 14(3), pages 109-130, August.
    3. Bos, Dieter, 1991. "Privatization: A Theoretical Treatment," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283690, June.
    4. Eoin Reeves & Michael Barrow, 2000. "The Impact of Contracting Out on the Costs of Refuse Collection Services - The Case of Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 31(2), pages 129-150.
    5. Anton Marcinèin & Sweder Wijnbergen, 1997. "The impact of Czech privatization methods on enterprise performance incorporating initial selection-bias correction," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 5(2), pages 289-304, November.
    6. Schmidt, Klaus M., 2000. "The political economy of mass privatization and the risk of expropriation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 393-421, February.
    7. Dubin, Jeffrey A & Navarro, Peter, 1988. "How Markets for Impure Public Goods Organize: The Case of Household Refuse Collection," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 217-241, Fall.
    8. Nelson, Michael A, 1997. "Municipal Government Approaches to Service Delivery: An Analysis from a Transactions Cost Perspective," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(1), pages 82-96, January.
    9. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    10. Stevens, Barbara J, 1978. "Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(3), pages 438-448, August.
    11. E. Dijkgraaf & R. Gradus, 2003. "Cost Savings of Contracting Out Refuse Collection," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 149-161, June.
    12. John Cubbin & Simon Domberger & Shirley Meadowcroft, 1987. "Competitive tendering and refuse collection: identifying the sources of efficiency gains," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 8(3), pages 49-58, August.
    13. Bivand, Roger & Szymanski, Stefan, 2000. "Modelling the spatial impact of the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 203-219, March.
    14. Bruno Biais & Enrico Perotti, 2002. "Machiavellian Privatization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 240-258, March.
    15. Wittman, Donald, 1989. "Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1395-1424, December.
    16. Domberger, S & Meadowcroft, S & Thompson, D J, 1986. "Competitive tendering and efficiency: the case of refuse collection," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 7(4), pages 69-87, November.
    17. Domberger, Simon & Jensen, Paul, 1997. "Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 67-78, Winter.
    18. Edwards, Franklin R & Stevens, Barbara J, 1978. "The Provision of Municipal Sanitation Services by Private Firms: An Empirical Analysis of the Efficiency of Alternative Market Structures and Regulatory Arrangements," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 133-147, December.
    19. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119, June.
    20. Ohlsson, Henry, 1996. "Ownership and input prices: A comparison of public and private enterprises," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 33-38, October.
    21. A. Marcincin & S. van Wijnbergen, 1997. "The Impact of Czech Privatisation Methods on Enterprise Performance Incorporating Initial Selection Bias Correction," CERT Discussion Papers 9704, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    22. Vining, Aidan R & Boardman, Anthony E, 1992. "Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 205-239, March.
    23. Stefan Szymanski, 1996. "The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, August.
    24. Gary A. Hoover & James Peoples, 2003. "Privatization of Refuse Removal and Labor Costs ," Journal of Labor Research, Transaction Publishers, vol. 24(2), pages 294-305, April.
    25. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116, July.
    26. Nuria Bosch Roca & Francisco Pedraja & Javier Suarez Pandiello, 1999. "Measuring the efficiency in spanish municipal refuse collection services," Working Papers in Economics 46, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    27. E. Dijkgraaf & R. H. J. M. Gradus & B. Melenberg, 2003. "Contracting out refuse collection," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 553-570, July.
    28. repec:hrv:faseco:30727606 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. G. S. Maddala & Lung-Fei Lee, 1976. "Recursive Models with Qualitative Endogenous Variables," NBER Chapters,in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 525-545 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Tim Fry & Sandra Mihajilo & Roslyn Russell & Robert Brooks, 2008. "The Factors Influencing Saving in a Matched Savings Program: Goals, Knowledge of Payment Instruments, and Other Behavior," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 234-250, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:24:y:2003:i:2:p:167-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Emma Hyman). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.