IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ete/ceswps/ces10.30.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Empirical welfare analysis in random utility models of labour supply

Author

Listed:
  • André DECOSTER
  • Peter HAAN

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to apply recently proposed individual welfare measures in the context of random utility models of labour supply. Contrary to the standard practice of using reference preferences and wages, these measures preserve preference heterogeneity in the normative step of the analysis. They also make the ethical priors, implicit in any interpersonal comparison, more explicit. On the basis of microdata from the Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) for married couples in Germany, we provide empirical evidence about the sensitivity of the welfare orderings to different normative principles embodied in these measures. We retrieve individual and household specific preference heterogeneity, by estimating a structural discrete choice labor supply model. We use this preference information to construct welfare orderings of households according to the different metrics, each embodying different ethical choices concerning the preference heterogeneity in the consumption-leisure space. We then discuss how sensitive the assessment of a hypothetical tax reform is to the choice of metric. The chosen tax reform is similar to a subsidy of social security contributions.

Suggested Citation

  • André DECOSTER & Peter HAAN, 2010. "Empirical welfare analysis in random utility models of labour supply," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces10.30, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
  • Handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces10.30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/281898/1/DPS1030.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arthur van Soest, 1995. "Structural Models of Family Labor Supply: A Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(1), pages 63-88.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Boeters & Luc Savard, 2011. "The Labour Market in CGE Models," Cahiers de recherche 11-20, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    2. Jean-François Carpantier & Christelle Sapata, 2013. "An Ex-Post View of Inequality of Opportunity in France and its Regions," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 281-311, September.
    3. Bessho, Shun-ichiro & Hayashi, Masayoshi, 2014. "Intensive margins, extensive margins, and spousal allowances in the Japanese system of personal income taxes: A discrete choice analysis," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 162-178.
    4. Shun-ichiro Bessho & Masayoshi Hayashi, 2015. "Should the Japanese tax system be more progressive? An evaluation using the simulated SMCFs based on the discrete choice model of labor supply," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(1), pages 144-175, February.
    5. Olivier Bargain & André Decoster & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2013. "Welfare, labor supply and heterogeneous preferences: evidence for Europe and the US," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 789-817, October.
    6. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2011. "Tax-Benefit Systems in Europe and the US: Between Equity and Efficiency," CESifo Working Paper Series 3534, CESifo.
    7. Jean-François Carpantier & Christelle Sapata, 2012. "Unfair inequalities in France: A regional comparison," Working Papers hal-01821150, HAL.
    8. André Decoster & Peter Haan, 2015. "Empirical welfare analysis with preference heterogeneity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(2), pages 224-251, April.
    9. Thor O. Thoresen & Zhiyang Jia & Peter J. Lambert, 2013. "Distributional benchmarking in tax policy evaluations," Discussion Papers 765, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. John Creedy & Nicolas Hérault†, 2011. "Decomposing Inequality and Social Welfare Changes : The Use of Alternative Welfare Metrics," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1121, The University of Melbourne.
    11. Jean-François Carpantier & Christelle Sapata, 2016. "Empirical welfare analysis: when preferences matter," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 521-542, March.
    12. Creedy, John, 2013. "Alternative Distributions for Inequality and Poverty Comparisons," Working Paper Series 18784, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    13. John Creedy, 2013. "Alternative Distributions for Inequality and Poverty Comparisons," Treasury Working Paper Series 13/11, New Zealand Treasury.
    14. John Creedy & Nicolas Hérault†, 2011. "Decomposing Inequality and Social Welfare Changes : The Use of Alternative Welfare Metrics," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1121, The University of Melbourne.
    15. Antoine de Mahieu, 2021. "In-work Benefits in Belgium: Effects on Labour Supply and Welfare," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 14(1), pages 43-72.
    16. André Decoster & Peter Haan, 2011. "A Switch from Joint to Individual Taxation Is Welfare Improving," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1175, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Figari, Francesco, 2011. "From housewives to independent earners: can the tax system help Italian women to work?," ISER Working Paper Series 2011-15, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    18. Carlotta Balestra & Romina Boarini & Elena Tosetto, 2018. "What Matters Most to People? Evidence from the OECD Better Life Index Users’ Responses," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 907-930, April.
    19. André Decoster & Peter Haan, 2014. "Welfare Effects of a Shift of Joint to Individual Taxation in the German Personal Income Tax," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 70(4), pages 599-624, December.
    20. Boeters, Stefan & Savard, Luc, 2013. "The Labor Market in Computable General Equilibrium Models," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1645-1718, Elsevier.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geyer, Johannes & Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2015. "The effects of family policy on maternal labor supply: Combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 84-98.
    2. André Decoster & Pieter Vanleenhove, 2012. "In-Work Tax Credits in Belgium :An Analysis of the Jobkorting Using a Discrete Labour Supply Model," Brussels Economic Review, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, vol. 55(2), pages 121-150.
    3. Nicolas Hérault & Guyonne Kalb, 2022. "Understanding the rising trend in female labour force participation," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 341-363, December.
    4. John K. Dagsvik & Zhiyang Jia, 2016. "Labor Supply as a Choice Among Latent Jobs: Unobserved Heterogeneity and Identification," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 487-506, April.
    5. Nikolaj Malchow-Møller & Michael Svarer, 2003. "Estimation of the multinomial logit model with random effects," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 389-392.
    6. Blau, David M. & Riphahn, Regina T., 1999. "Labor force transitions of older married couples in Germany," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 229-252, June.
    7. Bofinger, Peter & Franz, Wolfgang & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Weder di Mauro, Beatrice & Wiegard, Wolfgang, 2010. "Chancen für einen stabilen Aufschwung. Jahresgutachten 2010/11 [Chances for a stable upturn. Annual Report 2010/11]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201011.
    8. van Soest, A.H.O. & Das, J.W.M., 2000. "Family Labor Supply and Proposed Tax Reforms in the Netherlands," Discussion Paper 2000-20, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Bessho, Shun-ichiro & Hayashi, Masayoshi, 2014. "Intensive margins, extensive margins, and spousal allowances in the Japanese system of personal income taxes: A discrete choice analysis," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 162-178.
    10. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian, 2006. "In-work policies in Europe: Killing two birds with one stone?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 667-697, December.
    11. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino & Erling Holmøy & Birger Strøm & Tom Wennemo, 2004. "Population ageing and fiscal sustainability: An integrated micro-macro analysis of required tax changes," Discussion Papers 367, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Nathalie Picard & Andre de Palma & Sophie Dantan, 2013. "Intra-Household Discrete Choice Models Of Mode Choice And Residential Location," Articles, International Journal of Transport Economics, vol. 40(3).
    13. Hanel, Barbara & Kalb, Guyonne & Scott, Anthony, 2014. "Nurses’ labour supply elasticities: The importance of accounting for extensive margins," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 94-112.
    14. Soren Blomquist & Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang & Whitney K. Newey, 2022. "Nonlinear Budget Set Regressions for the Random Utility Model," Working Papers 2219, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    15. Charlier, Erwin & Melenberg, Bertrand & van Soest, Arthur, 2000. "Estimation of a censored regression panel data model using conditional moment restrictions efficiently," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 25-56, March.
    16. repec:nbp:journl:v:41:y:2010:i:3:p:5-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Guyonne Kalb & Wang-Sheng Lee, 2007. "The effect of an alternative childcare subsidy on labour supply: a policy simulation," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 10(1), pages 39-57.
    18. José Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, 2008. "Discrete choice models of labour supply, behavioural microsimulation and the Spanish tax reforms," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 6(3), pages 247-273, September.
    19. Bachmann Ronald & Jäger Philipp & Jessen Robin, 2021. "A Split Decision: Welche Auswirkungen hätte die Abschaffung des Ehegattensplittings auf das Arbeitsangebot und die Einkommensverteilung?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 70(2), pages 105-131, August.
    20. Frederic Vermeulen, 2006. "A collective model for female labour supply with non-participation and taxation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 19(1), pages 99-118, February.
    21. Hans G. Bloemen & Arie Kapteyn, 2008. "The estimation of utility-consistent labor supply models by means of simulated scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 395-422.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces10.30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: library EBIB (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://feb.kuleuven.be/Economics/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.