The phrase "as supply side" is not correct and lacks clarity in written English.
It may be intended to refer to a specific economic context, but it needs additional context to be meaningful.
Example: "The policy changes were implemented as supply side measures to stimulate economic growth."
Alternatives: "in terms of supply side" or "from a supply side perspective".
The theme is a move away from what has been described as "supply side" search - reflecting the needs of producers - towards demand side: a shift towards results being determined by what you want as opposed what is generated by corporate algorithms.
Thus, a comprehensive approach to increasing health service utilization should give attention to the demand, as well as supply, side of health care delivery.
While health services utilization in the cyclone-affected study area improved after the incident, more effort will be needed for townships with low utilization rates to determine the factors contributing to low utilization such as supply side (e.g., accessibility of the health services) or demand side (e.g., patient factors such as financial difficulties).
The theory behind this puzzling behavior was known as "supply-side economics".
It's a concept known as "supply-side economics," which many Republicans have embraced, including Reagan.
In those cases, however, the economy was operating well below full employment and needed a "demand-side" stimulus (even though Reagan advertised his tax reduction as "supply-side").
The resulting deficits may be described as "supply-side economics", rather than Keynesian stimulus, but the effect will be the same: growth and inflation will both increase.
Companies need to see these disruptors as supply-side disruptions, and make a difficult choice as to whether they can meet that challenge.
Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Treasury Secretary, foresaw "a great virtuous cycle" that could be set in motion by "scientific taxation," or what, sixty years later, the Reagan White House would revive as supply-side economics.
They see themselves as supply-side reformers rather than big spenders and hope the great repeal bill is a chance to reconsider the deep structures of the British economy.
Chait exploits the eccentricities of this gang to cast doubt on their economics, a questionable tactic, but he rightly observes that the Laffer curve, better known now as supply-side economics, was promoted mostly by opinion writers and not by mainstream economists.
