The assessment, by Melbourne University economist Jeff Borland and Rutgers University economist Jennifer Hunt, found the $88 billion measure "almost certainly reduced the extent of the downturn due to COVID-19".

But the economists said estimates that JobKeeper saved 812,000 jobs were likely at the "upper bounds" of its impact, with evidence showing around a quarter of those whose jobs were protected under the measure leaving the workforce early in the recovery.

If the number of jobs preserved under the scheme was less, as they suspect, "the cost per job would be even higher [than $113,000]".

JobSeeker has been heavily criticised over the relatively untargeted nature of the assistance it provided, particularly to major employers making record profits or who engaged in mass sackings.

Retailing giant Harvey Norman received $22 million through JobKeeper despite making a record profit in 2020-21. It has since repaid $6 million. Qantas claimed more than $860 million and nonetheless sacked thousands of employees during the pandemic, including 1700 baggage handlers and ground staff.

International comparisons showed JobKeeper was "two to three times more expensive" than job programs implemented by the United States during the global financial crisis but was still cheaper than the Trump Administration's Paycheck Protection Program, which was even less targeted than JobKeeper.

Professor Borland and Professor Hunt said those designing and implementing JobKeeper faced a trade-off between providing support as soon as possible and making it targeted, and found it "saved jobs and bolstered wages, thereby protecting workers and households whose incomes would otherwise have fallen".

But the need for speed meant the program was "relatively untargeted" and 80 per cent of transfers went to employers and 20 per cent to workers.

READ MORE:

"The 'one-in-all-in' feature meant eligible employers received payments for all eligible employees, not just those who would have been laid off or had reduced hours," they said, noting transfers made to employers "had an undoubted impact on their bottom line".

A separate study of business support during the pandemic found both jobs and wages declined sharply in the early stages of the pandemic but stabilised once JobKeeper was announced.

The analysis, by economists Timothy Watson and Paul Buckingham, said the Morrison government's support measures helped hold up profits and savings.

But, by saving companies that would otherwise have folded, they have likely also contributed to the current productivity problem.

The economists found that, following the introduction of the support measures, the business failure rate fell by 8 per cent and business entries grew very strongly relative to exits from mid-2021, with potentially long-term ramifications for productivity.

"The suppression of business exits during the pandemic may have further contributed to the declining trend in creative destruction and business dynamism," they said.

The findings follow the release of research released by the RBA showing workers are $1000 worse off than they would otherwise be because of insufficient competition, stagnant markets and industry concentration.