The Case for Labour Supply Incentives: A Comparison of Family Policies in Australia and Norway
AbstractMany of the Australian family support schemes are income-tested transfers, targeted towards the lower end of the income distribution, whereas the Norwegian approach is to provide subsidised non-parental care services for families and universal family payments. Using microsimulation models developed in Australia and Norway, we discuss the scope for introducing policy changes to encourage parents’ labour supply within these two types of family transfer designs. The analysis highlights that the case for labour supply encouraging policy changes is restricted by the economic environment and the role that has been given to family policy in the two countries. Whereas there is considerable potential for increased labour supply of Australian mothers, for example through a move towards a Nordic style family policy design, improving labour supply incentives may have detrimental distributional effects and is likely to be costly. The Norwegian situation is different: mothers already have high labour supply and any adverse distributional effects of further labour supply incentives occur in an economy with low initial income dispersion. However, the large amount of resources already used for family support in the Norwegian case, does not promote further initiatives which would benefit this segment of the population. This paper aims to examine three different types of effect arising from a policy change making the Australian familyrelated payments universal and a policy change reducing the cost of childcare in both countries. The types of effect considered are changes in labour supply, income distribution and the cost to government.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne in its series Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series with number wp2007n27.
Length: 56 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2007
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia
Phone: +61 3 8344 2100
Fax: +61 3 8344 2111
Web page: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/
More information through EDIRC
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2008-01-05 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Patricia M. Anderson & Phillip B. Levine, 1999.
"Child Care and Mothers' Employment Decisions,"
JCPR Working Papers
64, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
- Gregory Acs & Eric Toder, 2007. "Should we subsidize work? Welfare reform, the earned income tax credit and optimal transfers," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 327-343, June.
- Guyonne Kalb & Thor Thoresen, 2010. "A comparison of family policy designs of Australia and Norway using microsimulation models," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 255-287, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jenny Chen).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.