At the start of February 2017, the Japanese government introduced its 'Premium Friday' scheme. This encourages employers to allow their workers to leave work at 15:00 on the last Friday of each month, without experiencing any reduction in their wages. The Japanese government wants to reduce the number of hours people work. One reason is to improve the health, and so possibly the productivity, of workers. Fig. 1.1 shows the average number of hours worked and productivity (GDP per hour worked in US $) in six selected countries. [Figure 1.1] Nearly one quarter of Japanese workers work more than 50 hours a week and some work more than 25 hours overtime a week. The average Japanese worker only takes half of their paid holidays. Nearly 20 years of low economic growth and deflation have created a sense of job insecurity. Trade unions in Japan have been concentrating on trying to achieve shorter working hours. The government thinks that working fewer hours would give people more time to bring up a child and look after elderly relatives. Japan's birth rate has fallen every year for the last 36 years, and at a faster rate than the fall in the death rate leading to a fall in the size of the population. The government hopes more leisure time will encourage an increase in consumer spending. Higher consumer spending would benefit Japanese firms and would reduce the chances of deflation returning. The initial response to Premium Friday was not promising. At the end of February 2017, only 4% of Japanese workers left early. In the longer run, however, the scheme may be more successful. This is because unemployment in the country had fallen with only 2 million out of a labour force of 66 million being unemployed at the end of February 2017. Low unemployment increases job security and usually increases wages. In Japan's case, however, the higher demand for labour has been matched by a higher supply. Some of this higher supply has come from migrant workers, but a greater proportion has come from more Japanese people working past retirement age and more women working.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2019). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [2] working hours / leisure time; holidays; job security / job insecurity; wages
2. [2] Leisure time / holidays / time devoted to raising children / looking after the elderly (1) opportunity cost is the (next) best alternative forgone (1).
3. [2] 2.56m / 2 560 000 (2). Correct working: 4% of 64m (66m – 2m) or 2,560 or version of 2.56 (1).
4. [4] The birth rate has fallen (1) more than the fall in the death rate (1). A fall in the birth rate means fewer children are being born (1) a reason e.g. more women working / people working longer hours / job insecurity / looking after elderly relatives (1). A fall in the death rate means people are living longer (1). If the birth rate falls by more than the death rate there may be a natural decrease in population (1) actual decrease if natural decrease is more than net immigration (1) extra number of older people is more than offset by fewer babies (1).
5. [5] Generally, the shorter the hours worked the higher the productivity (1) inverse relationship / negative relationship (1). The expected relationship (1) workers will not be tired and so will be able to produce more per hour / more leisure time may increase efficiency / may be more motivated (1). Two countries, France and Germany, have the shortest working hours and the highest productivity (1). Country with the longest working hours, Mexico, has the lowest productivity (1). South Korea is an exception (1), long working hours but higher productivity than Mexico / Russia which have shorter working hours (1),
6. [5] Up to 3 marks for why it might: A cut in income tax will increase disposable income / purchasing power (1) this may increase spending (1) higher spending may encourage more investment (1) higher total (aggregate) demand (1) may encourage firms to raise prices/demand-pull inflation (1). Higher demand may encourage firms to expand (1) they may take on extra workers (1) reduce unemployment (1) they may pay higher wages (1) increasing costs of production (1) causing cost-push inflation (1). Up to 3 marks for why it might not: Consumers may lack confidence (1) and so not spend any more / may save (1) may still delay purchases (1) they may spend on imports rather than domestic products (1). Firms may lack confidence (1) and so not invest (1). Any extra investment which takes place may reduce costs of production (1) and so prices may fall further (1). Firms may have spare capacity (1) and so may be able to increase output without increasing average costs of production (1) and so prices may not rise (1). Government tax revenue may fall (1) reducing government spending which may mean that total demand does not rise (1).
7. [4] Trade unions have been concentrating on trying to achieve shorter working hours (1) this may suggest they have not been pressing for wage rises (1). Higher demand for labour has been matched by higher supply (1) the higher supply has come from immigration (1) and a higher proportion of women in the labour force / people working past retirement age (1) making it easier for firms to recruit workers without raising wages (1). Long experience of deflation / low economic growth (1) may have resulted in lower consumer spending / low profits / real wages may have increased (1). Job insecurity (1) less willing to press for wage rises (1).
8. [6] Up to 4 marks for why it might: They may increase the size of the labour force (1) increase productive capacity / potential output / economic growth (1). They may increase total (aggregate) demand (1) and so generate more jobs (1). Japan's population is falling (1) without a rise in the supply of labour, there may be a shortage of workers (1) this may cause cost-push inflation (1). Migrant workers may have higher skills (1) new ideas / up to date with technology (1) this could raise productivity (1) may work for lower wages (1) lower costs of production (1) make the country's products more internationally competitive / lower prices (1). Tax revenue may increase (1) enabling the government to spend more on e.g. education (1). Up to 4 marks for why it might not: Migrant workers may keep wage rises low (1) and so restrict increases in living standards (1). In some cases, migrant workers may replace domestic workers causing some to be unemployed (1). Migrant workers may need training (1) increase firms costs (1). Migrant workers may bring their families with them (1) this may increase pressure on e.g. housing, school and healthcare (1) may lead to overpopulation (1). Migrant workers may send money home (1) harming the current account position (1).