This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Comparing in-work benefits and financial work incentives for low-income families in the US and the UK

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Mike Brewer () (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The goals of income transfer systems in the US and the UK for low-income families are to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and encourage work. Both the US and UK have made in-work benefits a key part of their strategy through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) respectively. But although similar in aims, there are significant differences in how the WFTC and EITC are structured and how they work operationally. In both countries, the combination of in-work benefits and welfare benefits produces a theoretical budget constraint with good financial incentives for lone parents to take a minimum wage job, but poor incentives to increase earnings beyond that. Help with housing costs and childcare costs reduce financial work incentives in both countries. Two further factors make direct comparisons of financial work incentives difficult. First, little is known about take-up rates of in-work and other welfare benefit rates in the US and UK, but recent falls in the numbers of US welfare benefits suggest that take-up rates may vary considerably between and within countries. Second, the differences in assessment and payment mechanisms between the EITC and the WFTC mean that low-income families in the UK and US may respond very differently to apparently similar financial incentives.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0016.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute for Fiscal Studies in its series IFS Working Papers with number W00/16.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Aug 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:00/16

Contact details of provider:
Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE
Phone: (+44) 020 7291 4800
Fax: (+44) 020 7323 4780
Email:
Web page: http://www.ifs.org.uk

Order Information:
Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Emma Hyman).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

  1. Chris Giles & Paul Johnson & Julian McCrae, 1997. "Housing benefit and financial returns to employment for tenants in the social sector," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 49-72, February. [Downloadable!]
  2. Robert Walker & Michael Wiseman, 1997. "The possibility of a British earned income tax credit," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 401-425, November. [Downloadable!]
  3. Timothy M. Smeeding & Katherin Ross Phillips & Michael O'Connor, 2000. "The EITC: Expectation, Knowledge, Use and Economic and Social Mobility," JCPR Working Papers 139, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
  4. William Gale, 1997. "What can America learn from the British tax system?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 341-369, November. [Downloadable!]
  5. Rebecca M. Blank, David Card and Philip K. Robins, 1999. "Financial Incentives for Increasing Work and Income Among Low-Income Families," Economics Working Papers E99-264, University of California at Berkeley. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Keane, Michael & Moffitt, Robert, 1998. "A Structural Model of Multiple Welfare Program Participation and Labor Supply," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(3), pages 553-89, August.
    Other versions:
  7. Richard Blundell & Thomas MaCurdy, 1998. "Labour supply: A review of alternative approaches," IFS Working Papers W98/18, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    Other versions:
  8. Nada Eissa & Hilary Williamson Hoynes, 1998. "The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Labor Supply of Married Couples," NBER Working Papers 6856, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Richard Blundell & Alan Duncan & Julian McCrae & Costas Meghir, 2000. "The labour market impact of the working families’ tax credit," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 75-103, March. [Downloadable!]
  10. David M. Blau, 2000. "Child Care Subsidy Programs," NBER Working Papers 7806, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  11. Emmanuel Saez, 2000. "Optimal Income Transfer Programs: Intensive Versus Extensive Labor Supply Responses," NBER Working Papers 7708, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Paul Gregg, 2008. "UK Welfare Reform 1996 to 2008 and beyond: A personalised and responsive welfare system?," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 08/196, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK. [Downloadable!]
  2. Marc Fleurbaey, 2003. "Social Welfare, Priority to the Worst-Off And the Dimensions of Individual Well-Being," IDEP Working Papers 0312, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France. [Downloadable!]
  3. Wolfgang Ochel, 2003. "Welfare to Work in the United Kingdom," CESifo DICE Report, Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 1(2), pages 56-62, 02. [Downloadable!]
  4. Mike Brewer & Paul Gregg, 2001. "Eradicating child poverty in Britain: welfare reform and children since 1997," IFS Working Papers W01/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. Lindert, Peter, 2002. "Why the Welfare Looks Like a Free Lunch," Working Papers 02-7, University of California at Davis, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  6. Wolfgang Ochel, 2001. "Financial Incentives to Work -- Conceptions and Results in Great Britain, Ireland and Canada," CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper No. , CESifo Group Munich. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There are NEP reports in over 80 fields that deliver new research to your email.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-23.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.