IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/333123.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating gender impacts in employment: A CGE framework for policy makers

Author

Listed:
  • Dixon, Janine
  • Nassios, Jason

Abstract

Detailed representation of industries and regions has underpinned the policy relevance and hence the success of many CGE models developed over the last four decades, including the VU, TERM, VURM and USAGE models of the Centre of Policy Studies, and the GTAP model. The level of industry detail in these models is rarely matched by significant occupational detail. Although the aggregate supply of labour may be appropriately constrained in these models, a lack of occupational detail gives rise to highly elastic labour supply for individual industries, as the share of labour accounted for by any industry in a detailed industry model is typically small. The problem is addressed in many CGE models (e.g. P.Dixon and Rimmer 2018) by putting constraints around the supply of labour by occupation. The constraint typically involves dividing the labour force into cohorts with fixed characteristics, and using these characteristics to limit occupation-specific labour supply. For example, P.Dixon and Rimmer (2018) use existing occupation and immigration status as the fixed characteristics and use a matrix of transition probabilities to constrain supply to occupations in the model solution. This approach also allows for transition into and out of unemployment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dixon, Janine & Nassios, Jason, 2019. "Evaluating gender impacts in employment: A CGE framework for policy makers," Conference papers 333123, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:333123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333123/files/9451.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fraser, Iain & Waschik, Robert, 2013. "The Double Dividend hypothesis in a CGE model: Specific factors and the carbon base," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 283-295.
    2. Carolyn Fischer & Alan K. Fox, 2007. "Output-Based Allocation of Emissions Permits for Mitigating Tax and Trade Interactions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 575-599.
    3. Janine Dixon, 2017. "Victoria University Employment Forecasts: 2017 edition," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-277, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    4. Janine M. Dixon & Jason Nassios, 2018. "A Dynamic Economy-wide Analysis of Company Tax Cuts in Australia," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-287, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    5. Takeda, Shiro, 2007. "The double dividend from carbon regulations in Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 336-364, September.
    6. P.B. Dixon & M.T. Rimmer, 2018. "Creating a labor-market module for USAGE-TERM: illustrative application, theory and data," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-283, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    7. Michiel Evers & Ruud Mooij & Daniel Vuuren, 2008. "The Wage Elasticity of Labour Supply: A Synthesis of Empirical Estimates," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 25-43, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jason Nassios & John Madden & James Giesecke & Janine Dixon & Nhi Tran & Peter Dixon & Maureen Rimmer & Philip Adams & John Freebairn, 2019. "The economic impact and efficiency of state and federal taxes in Australia," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-289, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    2. J.M. Dixon & J. Nassios, 2018. "The Effectiveness of Investment Stimulus Policies in Australia," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-282, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    3. Orlov, Anton & Grethe, Harald & McDonald, Scott, 2013. "Carbon taxation in Russia: Prospects for a double dividend and improved energy efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 128-140.
    4. Fraser, Iain & Waschik, Robert, 2013. "The Double Dividend hypothesis in a CGE model: Specific factors and the carbon base," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 283-295.
    5. Sandra Müllbacher & Wolfgang Nagl, 2017. "Labour supply in Austria: an assessment of recent developments and the effects of a tax reform," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 465-486, August.
    6. Masato Yamazaki & Atsushi Koike & Yoshinori Sone, 2018. "A Heuristic Approach to the Estimation of Key Parameters for a Monthly, Recursive, Dynamic CGE Model," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 283-301, October.
    7. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 179-210.
    8. European Commission, 2013. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2013 Report," Taxation Papers 38, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    9. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony, 2015. "A Primer on Comprehensive Policy Options for States to Comply with the Clean Power Plan," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-15, Resources for the Future.
    10. Airebule, Palizha & Cheng, Haitao & Ishikawa, Jota, 2023. "Assessing carbon emissions embodied in international trade based on shared responsibility," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Christoph Böhringer & André Müller & Jan Schneider, 2015. "Carbon Tariffs Revisited," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 629-672.
    12. Benjamin Jones & Michael Keen & Jon Strand, 2013. "Fiscal implications of climate change," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(1), pages 29-70, February.
    13. Judit Krekó & Balázs Munkácsy & Márton Csillag & Ágota Scharle, 2022. "A job trial subsidy for youth:cheap labour or a screening device?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2222, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Carolyn Fischer & William A. Pizer, 2019. "Horizontal Equity Effects in Energy Regulation," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(S1), pages 209-237.
    15. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian & Peichl, Andreas, 2011. "Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 5820, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Herwig Immervoll & Stefano Scarpetta, 2012. "Activation and employment support policies in OECD countries. An overview of current approaches," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Shiro Takeda & Toshi H. Arimura, 2020. "A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Environmental Tax Reform in Japan," RIEEM Discussion Paper Series 2002, Research Institute for Environmental Economics and Management, Waseda University.
    18. Hjellset Alne, Ragnar, 2018. "Economic incentives, disability insurance and labor supply," Working Papers in Economics 2/18, University of Bergen, Department of Economics, revised 14 Jun 2018.
    19. Meredith Fowlie & Mar Reguant & Stephen P. Ryan, 2016. "Market-Based Emissions Regulation and Industry Dynamics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 249-302.
    20. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Labor and Human Capital;

    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:ags:pugtwp:333123. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.