IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ifs/ifsewp/95-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Labour supply, unemployment and participation in in-work transfer programmes

Author

Listed:
  • Bingley, Bingley

    (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

  • Ian Walker

    (Institute for Fiscal Studies and Lancaster University)

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the impact of the UK Family Credit (FC) scheme (an in-work income transfer programme, i.e. one which is only payable to individuals who are in work) on the labour supply of lone mothers. The question is an important one because: in-work transfer schemes have recently been suggested as a device for encouraging labour force participation and reducing the severity of the disincentives associated with out-of-work transfer welfare programmes (such as Income Support (IS) in the UK, and Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in the US); the USA has an in-work transfer scheme called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which has grown in importance in recent years; an extension of FC to individuals without children, to be known as Earnings Top-up (ET), has recently been proposed in the UK. One difficulty with such schemes is that their design may be unavoidably complicated or personally intrusive to ensure that they are targeted sufficiently finely. The result may be that individuals may: feel that participation in such programmes is stigmatised or not understand that they have some eligibility. The implication of such stigma or ignorance is that individuals may not participate in such programmes despite their potential entitlement. This problem is known as benefit non take-up or programme non-participation. The difficulties in estimating the impact of such transfer programmes on labour supply behaviour are that: labour supply and programme participation decisions may be determined simultaneously, for example, if labour supply depends on the marginal wage and the marginal wage depends on whether one participates in an income transfer programme; individuals may choose not to participate in the labour market if some in-work benefit is stigmatised so it is necessary to distinguish between individuals who choose this position from those individuals who would want to work (and, perhaps, claim the in-work benefit) but simply cannot find a job - i.e. labour market rationing. Here we estimate a labour supply model which allows for endogenous in-work welfare programme participation. We also allow for involuntary unemployment so as to distinguish between programme non-participation and an inability to obtain work and thereby generate an eligibility to the programme. This is applied to the UK Family Credit programme for a sample of 4248 lone mothers drawn from Family Expenditure Surveys 1978-92. The estimates suggest that FC plays an important role in overcoming the adverse incentive effects associated with Income Support and that it does this without having an adverse effect on the probability of working full-time. However, the probability of working would rise further (although the incentive to work full-time would be correspondingly diminished) were it not for some apparent stigma associated with FC participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bingley, Bingley & Ian Walker, 1995. "Labour supply, unemployment and participation in in-work transfer programmes," IFS Working Papers W95/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:95/16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifs.org.uk
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Duncan, Alan & Weeks, Melvyn, 1997. "Behavioural tax microsimulation with finite hours choices," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 619-626, April.

    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:ifs:ifsewp:95/16. 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: Emma Hyman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.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.