Analyze 1 of the following government intervention programs:

  • Countercyclical fiscal policies (countering economic disruptions such as the housing bubble and the Great Recession)
  • US agriculture support programs
  • Assistance for Low Income Families (choose 1)
  • Housing vouchers
  • Earned Income Tax Credit (including Child Tax Credit)
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Low income healthcare (choose 1)
  • Medicaid (including Children’s Health Insurance Program).
  • Affordable Care Act expansion
  • Social insurance programs (choose 1)
  • Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)
  • Medicare
  • Unemployment insurance

Write a 700- to 1,050-word summary of your analysis. Identify the intervention and the market failure leading up to the intervention. Complete the following in your paper:

  • Analyze the arguments for government intervention as opposed to arguments for market-based solutions.Hint:See the information about market failures.
  • Examine who has been helped and who has been hurt by the selected government intervention.
  • Examine externalities and unintended consequences of such intervention. For example, consider whether the SNAP program and health coverage for low-income families result in higher future tax revenues because low-income children grow up healthier and produce higher incomes over their lifetimes.
  • Analyze whether cost of the intervention you selected as a share of GDP or the number of participants is increasing,decreasing, or varies with the state of the economy, based on the cost trend(or number of participants) since its inception or since 2000.
  • Analyze credible economists’ opinions on the success or failure of the intervention that you chose in achieving its objectives.
  • Recommend whether the program should be continued as is, discontinued, or modified based on your conclusions. Defend your recommendation.

Note: Use of charts and graphs is encouraged with appropriate citations. Any charts or graphs retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis FRED website may only be included when the data sources used by FRED are US government sources such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Cite at least 2 academically credible sources.  

Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.


Housing vouchers Analysis

Housing Vouchers and low-income rent controls

 This analysis centers on how government interventions through housing vouchers have impacted the economy, the market, and people’s lives.  The federal government came up with the housing vouchers to assist the less fortunate, vulnerable, disabled, and elderly. In conjunction with the private sector, the government program was meant to offer proper sanitation and housing.  Eligible persons are supposed to apply and select a house that lies within a particular housing choice voucher (Ellen, 2020). Local public housing agencies manage housing vouchers.  They collect funds from the united state department of housing and urban development.   The housing program, also known as section 8, is controlled by the United States Department of Housing and urban development.

Government Intervention opposed to Market-based solutions.

 Traditionally both the federal and state governments are determined to stimulate economic growth. They allocate money in different industries to stabilize the country (Ellen, 2020). Besides salvaging market failures, the government is determined to bring poverty rates down and ensure the labor market is fair for everyone. Typically, private organizations involve in a venture to make proceeds.  However, the market fails when the social benefits of a venture outweigh the social cost. As a result, an organization will not make profits despite selling its goods and services. Perceptively, when the government intervenes, the objective is to address market failure.  The United States government initiated set standards for the housing voucher program to succeed.  The standards were geared towards guaranteeing diversity, integrity, and operational efficacy. The government intervention would assist those that could not afford to house or service their rent obligations. The less fortunate were singled out as the main beneficiaries of the program.

To date, the program has been helpful, but it ought to pinpoint households’ dare needs and consider them. Herein, strategies, policies, and guidelines should be initiated to secure the program’s integrity. Moreover, the program ought to ensure only needy families benefit the most. An income limit and family size would determine eligibility for the program (Sard et al., 2018). In keeping with section 8, families have the liberty to choose where they would like to reside.  Households are free to opt for the location of their liking, which suites their needs.  The site would offer an opportunity for families to improve their living conditions. A financial boost assists families to settle in a better environment and children placed in better learning institutions.

Even though the HUD program is designed to assist poverty stricken and vulnerable populations, market-based arguments cite that the plan might fail. Those who collect the funds might depend on the money instead of venturing into business or seeking employment (Ellen, 2020). The government funds are not payable. Beneficiaries can become less motivated to work hard. Another argument opposed to the program is that poor inner-city dwellers will shift to suburban areas. As a result, there would be a struggle for resources, jobs, and crime rates increasing.

Who has been helped and who has been hurt

           Since the section 8 program meant to help those in poverty-stricken areas that living in deplorable conditions,   it improved the lives of families and children. The disabled have received assistance, meaning that it is not a must for them to work because their salaries can service their obligations.  The taxpayers are the group that is hurt by the program because increased taxes will be imposed to finance the program (Ellen, 2020). Moreover, some believe that the system can be manipulated by individuals and money diverted to those who are not eligible for assistance. Corruption within the system would deny the less fortunate to receive what is rightfully theirs. A shift to other neighbors would increase the crime rate; the housing voucher creates a perception that families have money shared amongst others within a community.

Externalities and Consequences

On the flip side, children who their families are subjected to the program might grow up receive the vouchers instead of working hard to become financially stable.  They can be accustomed to the funds, thus hindering their objectives from becoming well off. Housing vouchers have somewhat created differences between social classes because some people think there are favors. Housing vouchers have inspired some children to focus on education and seek employment for better living conditions.

Cost effect

 The housing voucher program is strongly dependent on the performance of the economy. If the economy is struggling with inflation and unemployment, the government will be forced to impose extra taxes (Ellen, 2020). There would be an increased need to help the increased number of low-income families. The real estate market dictates the cost depending on the graphical locations. Housing prices can spike or dip, depending on how the government regulates the industry and funds the kitty.

Economists’ opinions

 According to Sard (2018), the housing voucher has been successful in the United States because it centers on cost-effectiveness. Entitlement to the housing program has achieved its objectives by far because it has improved the living conditions of low-income families. Strict targeting of vulnerable populations has subjected children to better schools and healthcare facilities (Sard et al., 2018).  Housing vouchers have served their goals of providing decent homes and better living conditions for American citizens without discrimination.


In my judgment, the program should continue, but it should be refined.  Choice-Based Housing Assistance should be modified to a need-based housing program for sustainability. Instead of the program being somewhat a grant, families should be spurred to seek employment so that funds can be allocated to other needy families. The government should ensure beneficiaries pay a certain amount of money when they become financially stable.


Ellen, I. G. (2020). What do we know about housing choice vouchers?. Regional Science and Urban Economics80, 103380.

Sard, B., Rice, D., Bell, A., & Mazzara, A. (2018). Federal Policy Changes Can Help More Families with Housing Vouchers Live in Higher-Opportunity Areas. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.