IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iae/iaewps/wp2015n11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reducing the Generosity and Increasing the Conditionality of Disability Benefits: Turning the Supertanker or Squeezing the Balloon?

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Broadway

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne)

  • Duncan McVicar

    (Queen's University Belfast)

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of a major Australian disability reform – the 2006 Welfare to Work reform – on welfare receipt. It uses a combination of difference-in-differences and propensity score matching to identify the treatment effect. The reform reduced the generosity and increased the conditionality of welfare payments by shifting partially disabled disability benefit claimants from disability benefits to unemployment benefits. This led to increases among partially disabled welfare recipients in the hazards for exiting welfare and for switching (back) from unemployment to disability benefits. It also led to an increase in the hazard for returning to welfare for those having previously exited welfare. Overall the reform had no impact on the probability of being on welfare 12 months or 24 months later. Disability reforms need to do more than simply reduce the generosity and tighten the conditionality of payments if they are to impact on welfare dependence among people with disability.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Broadway & Duncan McVicar, 2015. "Reducing the Generosity and Increasing the Conditionality of Disability Benefits: Turning the Supertanker or Squeezing the Balloon?," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2015n11, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    • Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2015n11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2015n11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip de Jong & Maarten Lindeboom & Bas van der Klaauw, 2011. "Screening Disability Insurance Applications," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 106-129, February.
    2. Chen, Susan & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2008. "The work disincentive effects of the disability insurance program in the 1990s," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 757-784, February.
    3. Jonathan Gruber, 2000. "Disability Insurance Benefits and Labor Supply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1162-1183, December.
    4. David H. Autor & Mark G. Duggan, 2006. "The Growth in the Social Security Disability Rolls: A Fiscal Crisis Unfolding," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 71-96, Summer.
    5. Richard Burkhauser & Mary Daly & Duncan McVicar & Roger Wilkins, 2014. "Disability benefit growth and disability reform in the US: lessons from other OECD nations," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-30, December.
    6. Bound, John, 1989. "The Health and Earnings of Rejected Disability Insurance Applicants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 482-503, June.
    7. Till von Wachter & Jae Song & Joyce Manchester, 2011. "Trends in Employment and Earnings of Allowed and Rejected Applicants to the Social Security Disability Insurance Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3308-3329, December.
    8. Sophie Mitra, 2009. "Disability Screening and Labor Supply: Evidence from South Africa," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 512-516, May.
    9. Seth Giertz & Jeffrey Kubik, 2011. "The Disability Screening Process and the Labor Market Behavior of Accepted and Rejected Applicants: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 237-253, September.
    10. Karlström, Anders & Palme, Mårten & Svensson, Ingemar, 2008. "The employment effect of stricter rules for eligibility for DI: Evidence from a natural experiment in Sweden," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(10-11), pages 2071-2082, October.
    11. Staubli, Stefan, 2011. "The impact of stricter criteria for disability insurance on labor force participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1223-1235, October.
    12. Duncan McVicar & Roger Wilkins, 2013. "Explaining the Growth in the Number of Recipients of the Disability Support Pension in Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 46(3), pages 345-356, September.
    13. Michele Campolieti, 2004. "Disability Insurance Benefits and Labor Supply: Some Additional Evidence," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(4), pages 863-890, October.
    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. Barbara Broadway & Sonja C. Kassenboehmer, 2019. "Employment effects of job counseling for disability insurance recipients," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2019n18, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.

    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. Barbara Broadway & Duncan McVicar, 2021. "Reducing the Generosity and Increasing the Conditionality of Welfare Benefits for People with Disability: “Turning the Supertanker” or “Squeezing the Balloon”?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(3), pages 848-873, July.
    2. Barbara Broadway & Sonja C. Kassenboehmer, 2019. "Employment effects of job counseling for disability insurance recipients," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2019n18, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    3. Andreas Haller & Stefan Staubli & Josef Zweimüller, 2024. "Designing Disability Insurance Reforms: Tightening Eligibility Rules or Reducing Benefits?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(1), pages 79-110, January.
    4. Melanie K Jones & Duncan McVicar, 2022. "The dynamics of disability and benefit receipt in Britain [Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 936-957.
    5. Garcia-Mandicó, Sílvia & García-Gómez, Pilar & Gielen, Anne C. & O’Donnell, Owen, 2020. "Earnings responses to disability insurance stringency," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Liebert, Helge, 2019. "Does external medical review reduce disability insurance inflow?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 108-128.
    7. Tobias Müller & Stefan Boes, 2020. "Disability insurance benefits and labor supply decisions: evidence from a discontinuity in benefit awards," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2513-2544, May.
    8. Chiara Dal Bianco, 2019. "Labour Supply and Welfare Effects of Disability Insurance: A Survey," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 5(1), pages 161-189, March.
    9. Müller, Tobias & Boes, Stefan, 2016. "Disability Insurance Benefits and Labor Supply Choices: Evidence from a Discontinuity in Benefit Awards," MPRA Paper 70957, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Silvia Garcia Mandico & Pilar (P.) Garcia-Gomez & Anne (A.C.) Gielen & Owen (O.A.) O'Donnell, 2018. "Earnings responses to disability benefit cuts," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-023/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Koning, Pierre & Muller, Paul & Prudon, Roger, 2022. "Do disability benefits hinder work resumption after recovery?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    12. Marie, Olivier & Vall Castello, Judit, 2012. "Measuring the (income) effect of disability insurance generosity on labour market participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 198-210.
    13. Moore, Timothy J., 2015. "The employment effects of terminating disability benefits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 30-43.
    14. Deuchert, Eva & Eugster, Beatrix, 2019. "Income and substitution effects of a disability insurance reform," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1-14.
    15. Mathilde Godard & Pierre Koning & Maarten Lindeboom, 2020. "Application and Award Responses to Stricter Screening in Disability Insurance," Working Papers 2012, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    16. Lawson, Nicholas, 2015. "Social program substitution and optimal policy," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 13-27.
    17. Marie, Olivier & Vall Castello, Judit, 2012. "Measuring the (income) effect of disability insurance generosity on labour market participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 198-210.
    18. Pichler, Stefan & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2024. "Sick Leave and Medical Leave in the United States: A Categorization and Recent Trends," IZA Policy Papers 206, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Andreas Ravndal Kostol & Magne Mogstad, 2014. "How Financial Incentives Induce Disability Insurance Recipients to Return to Work," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 624-655, February.
    20. Jeffrey Hemmeter & Michelle Stegman Bailey, 2016. "Earnings after DI: evidence from full medical continuing disability reviews," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-22, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Welfare reform; disability; hazard rate; propensity score matching; difference-indifferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • J14 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of the Elderly; Economics of the Handicapped; Non-Labor Market Discrimination

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iae:iaewps:wp2015n11. 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: Sheri Carnegie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.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.