Collective models of labor supply with nonconvex budget sets and nonparticipation: A calibration approach

Review of Economics of the Household

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 113-127

  Vermeulen, Frederic ^a   Bargain, Olivier ^b,c   Beblo, Miriam ^d   Beninger, Denis ^d   Blundell, Richard ^e,f   Carrasco, Raquel ^g   Chiuri, Maria Concetta ^c,h   Laisney, François ^d,i   Lechene, Valérie ^j   Moreau, Nicolas ^k   Myck, Michal ^e,l   Ruiz Castillo, Javier ^g  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b IZA   (Germany)

^c CHILD   (Italy)

^d CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

^e INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^h UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

ⁱ UNIVERSITÉ LOUIS PASTEUR   (France)

^j WADHAM COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^k TOULOUSE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (France)

^l DIW BERLIN   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Collective model; Household labor supply; Intrahousehold allocations; Tax reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646548643     PISSN: 15695239     EISSN: 15737152     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11150-006-0002-7     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Apps, P. (2003). Gender, time use and models of the household. IZA Discussion Paper 796. Bonn: IZA.
2. Apps, P., & Rees, R. (1988). Taxation and the household. Journal of Public Economics, 35, 355-369.
3. Apps, P., & Rees, R. (2001). Household production, full consumption and the costs of children. Labour Economics, 8, 621-648.
4. Bargain, O., Beninger, D., Laisney, F., & Moreau, N. (2002). Positive and normative analysis of tax policy: Does the representation of the household decision process matter? Evidence for France. Paper presented at the EEA'2 meeting in Venice.
5. Barmby, T., & Smith, N. (2001). Household labour supply in Britain and Denmark: Some interpretation using a model of Pareto optimal behavior. Applied Economics, 33, 1109-1116.
6. Beblo, M. (2001). Die Freizeitlücke zwischen erwerbstätigen Müttern und Vätern - Ein Ö konomischer Erklärungsversuch mit Daten der deutschen Zeitbudgeterhebung 1991/ 92. In M. Ehling, J. Merz et al. (Eds.), Zeitbudget in Deutschland - Erfahrungsberichte der Wissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
7. Beninger, D. (2000). Collective models: Introduction of the taxation. Mimeo, Mannheim: ZEW.
8. Beninger D., Laisney, F., & Beblo, M. (2002). Welfare analysis of fiscal reforms: Does the representation of the family decision process matter? Evidence for Germany. Mimeo, Mannheim: ZEW.
9. Beninger, D., Bargain, O., Beblo, M., Blundell, R., Carrasco, R., Chiuri, M.-C., Laisney, F., Lechene, V., Longobardi, E., Myck, M., Moreau, N., Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Vermeulen, F. (2006). Evaluating the move to a linear tax system in Germany and other European countries: The choice of the representation of household decision processes does matter. Review of Economics of the Household, 4, 159-180.
10. Bhattarai, K., & Whalley, J. (1997). Discreteness and the welfare cost of labor supply tax distortions. NBER Working Paper 6280. Cambridge Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.
11. Bingley, P., & Walker, I. (1997). The labour supply, unemployment, and participation of lone mothers in in-work transfer programs. Economic Journal, 107, 1375-1390.
12. Blundell, R., Duncan, A., & Meghir, C. (1998). Estimating labour supply responses using tax reforms. Econometrica, 66, 827-861.
13. Blundell, R., Lechene, V., & Myck, M. (2002). Does the representation of family decision processes matter? Collective decisions and fiscal reforms in the UK. Mimeo, London: IFS.
14. Blundell, R., Chiappori, P.-A., Magnac, T., & Meghir, C. (2001). Collective labour supply: Heterogeneity and non-participation. IFS Working Paper WP01/19. London: IFS.
15. Browning, M., & Chiappori, P.-A. (1998). Efficient intra-household allocations: A general characterization and empirical tests. Econometrica, 66, 1241-1278.
16. Browning, M., & Gørtz, M. (2005). Spending time and money within the household. Mimeo, Copenhagen: CAM.
17. Browning, M.,& Lechene, V. (2001). Caring and sharing: Tests between alternative models of intra-household allocation. Oxford Economics Discussion Paper Series 70. Oxford: University of Oxford.
18. Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A., & Lechene, V. (2006). Collective and unitary models: A clarification. Review of Economics of the Household, 4, 5-14.
19. Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A., & Lewbel, A. (2004). Estimating consumption economies of scale, adult equivalence scales, and household bargaining power. Mimeo, Boston: Boston College.
20. Carrasco, R., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2002). Does the representation of the family decision process matter? A collective model of household labor supply for the evaluation of a personal tax reform in Spain. Mimeo, Madrid: Universidad Carlos III.
21. Chiappori, P.-A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56, 63-89.
22. Chiappori, P.-A. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 437-467.
23. Chiappori, P.-A., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2002). Marriage market, divorce legislation and household labor supply. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 37-72.
24. Chiuri, M.-C., & Longobardi, E. (2002). Welfare analysis of fiscal reforms in Europe: Does the representation of family decision processes matter? Evidence from Italy. Mimeo, Bari: University of Bari.
25. Dauphin, A., El Lahga, A.R., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2006). Choix de Consommation des Ménages en Présence de Plusieurs Décideurs. Forthcoming in L'Actualité Économique.
26. Donni, O. (2003). Collective household labor supply: Non-participation and income taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1179-1198.
27. Donni, O. (2004). A note on the collective model of labor supply with domestic production. Mimeo, Cergy-Pontoise: Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
28. Fong, Y., & Zhang, J. (2001). The identication of unobservable independent and spousal leisure. Journal of Political Economy, 109, 191-202.
29. Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (1997). A test of the neo-classical and collective models of household labour supply. Economic Journal, 107, 933-955.
30. Heckman, J., & Singer, B. (1984). A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models of duration data. Econometrica, 52, 271-320.
31. Hoynes, H. (1996). Welfare transfers in two-parent families: Labor supply and welfare participation under AFDC-UP. Econometrica, 64, 295-332.
32. Lewbel, A. (2000). Two stage least squares estimation of endogeneous sample selection models. Mimeo, Boston: Boston College.
33. Lundberg, S., Pollak, R., Wales, T. (1997). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the UK child benefit. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 463-480.
34. Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21, 31-44.
35. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M., & Green, J. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models of discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447-470.
37. Moreau, N., & Donni, O. (2002). Une Estimation d'un Modéle Collectif d'Offre de Travail avec Taxation. Annales d'Économie et de Statistique, 65, 55-83.
38. Myck, M., Bargain, O., Beblo, M., Beninger, D., Blundell, R., Carrasco, R., Chiuri, M.C., Laisney, F., Lechene, V., Longobardi, E., Moreau, N., Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Vermeulen, F. (2006). Who receives the money matters: Simulating the working familiesã tax credit in the UK and some European tax reforms. Review of Economics of the Household, 4, 129-158.
39. Small, K., & Rosen, S. (1981). Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica, 49, 105-130.
40. Van Soest, A. (1995). Structural models of family labor supply: A discrete choice approach. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 63-88.
41. Vermeulen, F. (2002). Where does the unitary model go wrong? Simulating tax reforms by means of unitary and collective labour supply models. The case for Belgium. Mimeo, Leuven: University of Leuven.
42. Vermeulen, F. (2005). And the winner is... an empirical evaluation of unitary and collective labour supply models. Empirical Economics, 30, 711-734.