Labour supply specification and the evaluation of tax reforms

Blundell, Richard; Meghir, Costas; Symons, Elizabeth; Walker, Ian

doi:10.1016/0047-2727(88)90021-7

“…45 Although uncompensated wage elasticities were small, the compensated elasticities were found to be quite large and positive across a wide range of demographic groups. This model was then used to simulate a number of reforms to the British tax system in Blundell et al (1988).…”

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This own wage elasticity of approximately two is larger than those estimated in previous studies using British data. Blundell et al (1988) estimate a generalized version of the Stone±Geary labor supply model using a sample of almost 1400 married women from the British Family Expenditure Survey for 1980. A truncated likelihood approach was used that considered hours of work conditional on participation.…”

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

Labour supply: a review of alternative approaches

Blundell¹,

MaCurdy²

1998

Working Paper Series

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract This chapter surveys existing approaches to modeling labor supply and identi®es important gaps in the literature that could be addressed in future research. The discussion begins with a look at recent policy reforms and labor market facts that motivate the study of labor supply. The analysis then presents a unifying framework that allows alternative empirical formulations of the labor supply model to be compared and their resulting elasticities to be interpreted. This is followed by critical reviews of alternative approaches to labor-supply modeling. The ®rst review assesses the differencein-differences approach and its relationship to natural experiments. The second analyzes estimation with non-linear budget constraints and welfare-program participation. The third appraises developments of family labor-supply models including both the standard unitary and collective labor-supply formulations. The fourth brie¯y explores dynamic extensions of the labor supply model, characterizing how participation decisions, learning-by-doing, human capital accumulation and habit formation affect the analysis of the lifecycle model. At the end of each of the four broad reviews, we summarize a selection of the recent empirical ®ndings. The concluding section asks whether the developments reviewed in this chapter place us in a better position to answer the policy-reform questions and to interpret the trends in participation and hours with which we began this review. q Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

“…This model can be thought of as a simultaneous Tobit model, where we have four kinds of families: those where both spouses work, those where only one of the spouses works (2 cases), and those where neither of them work. Allowing for hours adjustment along the extensive margin for the wife when assessing labor supply responses to wage changes have been found to make a significant difference when assessing total labor supply response (for example, see Eissa et al 2004 andHeim 2009); however, extensive margin hours adjustments appear to be unimportant for men (for example, see Blundell et al 1988 andHeim, 2009). However, we opt for the most flexible specification, which allows for extensive margin hours adjustments for both the husband and wife.…”

Section: B Estimation Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Family Welfare from 1994 to 2012: A Tale of Two Decades

Hotchkiss

¹

,

Moore

²

,

Rios‐Avila

³

et al. 2014

SSRN Journal

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: The female/male average wage ratio has steadily risen from 1983 to 2012. In earlier work, we found that the falling wage gap from 1983 to 1993 was materially detrimental to the average dual-earner family. The female/male wage ratio continued to rise over the following two decades, accompanied by a growing share of households in which the wife is the principal household income generator. This paper investigates how these two developments affected family welfare. Although family welfare rose during the 1990s, the story of the 2000s is quite different. Terms of use: Documents inJEL classification: I30, J22, D19

show abstract

“…This model can be thought of as a simultaneous Tobit model, where we have four kinds of families: those where both husband and wife work, those where only one of the spouses works (2 cases), and those where neither of them work. Allowing for hours adjustment along the extensive margin for the wife when assessing labor supply responses to wage changes have been found to make a significant difference when assessing total labor supply response (for example, see Heim, 2009 andEissa et al, 2004), however, extensive margin hours adjustments appear to be unimportant for men (for example, see Heim, 2009, Blundell et al, 1988. Considering the simulation of suboptimal labor market outcomes that we plan to conduct allowing for non-working husbands may be important, so we opt to include them in the analysis.…”

Section: Estimation Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%