<p>From my shallow perspective as a Chinese, whenever there is a low economic growth rate, there is a massive infrastructure building plan as to give people work in place of relief subsidies to stimulate economy. I understand that for developed countries like Japan, United States, or Europe, they don't use that strategy anymore as what they did in Roosevelt period since their employment rate status has been quite good for a quite long time, there is no need to do that anymore.<br />
But why, for countries that are still not that developed, their infrastructure is still not sufficient, moreover their unemployment rate is still relatively high, such strategy still hasn't employed?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-27T09:21:06.763Z
To be a bit knitpicky, Europe is not a country, not even the EU is a country.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-27T09:24:39.760Z
Your question is somewhat light on details. Other countries are also spending money on building/maintaining infrastructure, thereby creating jobs. Are you claiming that the PRC spending ratio is higher and asking about this? Or is your question about whether unemployment benefits are/should be conditional on some work requirement, e.g.; looking for work or performing some work in the public sector, such as picking up garbage or building a highway?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-27T14:09:41.730Z
@Giskard That is exactly what I meant, the GDP created by infrastructure investment in China has been more than 10% or even 20% of the total GDP for more than 2 decades, yet from the data I just checked by Google, For India it's less than 3%
Tong Su
<macroeconomics><unemployment>
Why cant other country Imitate China give people work in place of relief subsidies? especially country with low-employment rate?
Tong Su
# Why cant other country Imitate China give people work in place of relief subsidies? especially country with low-employment rate?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-11-27)

From my shallow perspective as a Chinese, whenever there is a low economic growth rate, there is a massive infrastructure building plan as to give people work in place of relief subsidies to stimulate economy. I understand that for developed countries like Japan, United States, or Europe, they don't use that strategy anymore as what they did in Roosevelt period since their employment rate status has been quite good for a quite long time, there is no need to do that anymore.  
But why, for countries that are still not that developed, their infrastructure is still not sufficient, moreover their unemployment rate is still relatively high, such strategy still hasn't employed?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, unemployment

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: To be a bit knitpicky, Europe is not a country, not even the EU is a country.  
> **username_1**: Your question is somewhat light on details. Other countries are also spending money on building/maintaining infrastructure, thereby creating jobs. Are you claiming that the PRC spending ratio is higher and asking about this? Or is your question about whether unemployment benefits are/should be conditional on some work requirement, e.g.; looking for work or performing some work in the public sector, such as picking up garbage or building a highway?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 That is exactly what I meant, the GDP created by infrastructure investment in China has been more than 10% or even 20% of the total GDP for more than 2 decades, yet from the data I just checked by Google, For India it's less than 3%  

---

## 0 answers

