IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v7y2007i1n58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are There Treatment Duration Differences in the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiments?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephens Melvin

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

Abstract

This paper re-examines the labor supply responses in the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiments (SIME/DIME). Specifically, the original experimental results show a significantly larger labor supply response for men and women from dual-headed households in the five-year Negative Income Tax (NIT) treatment relative to those in the three-year NIT treatment. Although typically thought of only as an NIT experiment, the SIME/DIME also included a job training experiment that enrolled roughly 60 percent of households, including both NIT treatment and control households. The original empirical specification imposed strong assumptions on the treatment response to the job training experiment in order to increase the precision of the estimated parameters. Once these assumptions are relaxed, the labor supply differences between men in the three- and five-year NIT treatments fall by over 50 percent in magnitude and become statistically insignificant. The analogous differences for women are almost entirely explained by these specification changes. Whereas the original findings of the SIME/DIME were inconsistent with the standard life-cycle labor supply model, the results of the re-analysis are mostly consistent with the model.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephens Melvin, 2007. "Are There Treatment Duration Differences in the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiments?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-43, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:7:y:2007:i:1:n:58
    DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.1645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1645
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1935-1682.1645?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:bpj:bejeap:v:7:y:2007:i:1:n:58. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.