IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

On the performance of unitary models of household labor supply estimated on “collective” data with taxation

Listed author(s):
  • Beninger, Denis
  • Laisney, François

Cet article compare les modèles unitaire et collectif sur la base de données collectives simulées en présence de divers types de taxation des revenus. Nous distinguons en particulier un système d’imposition individuelle et un système d’imposition jointe. En spécifiant un modèle unitaire flexible, du type de ceux utilisés dans la littérature empirique, nous obtenons des estimations assez différentes selon le régime fiscal utilisé pour simuler les données. Nous trouvons aussi des différences substantielles dans les ajustements de l’offre de travail prédits à la suite d’un changement de régime fiscal. Nos résultats illustrent également le fait que le calibrage des paramètres d’une réforme fiscale peut être lui-même fortement affecté par l’utilisation d’un modèle unitaire lorsque les données sont générées par un modèle collectif. Enfin, nous discutons les distorsions qui affectent l’analyse de réformes fiscales en termes de bien-être dans une telle situation. Les résultats suggèrent que des efforts accrus devraient être consacrés à la recherche sur l’estimation de modèles collectifs dans les situations complexes auxquelles on est confronté lors de l’analyse de réformes fiscales. Ceci inclut des contraintes budgétaires donnant naissance à des ensembles de budget non convexes, ainsi que la modélisation de solutions en coin pour les offres de travail des conjoints. On the performance of unitary models of household labor supply estimated on “collective” data with taxation Summary – This paper compares collective and unitary models on the basis of simulated collective data with income taxation. We distinguish the cases of individual and joint taxation. Estimating a flexible unitary model, we obtain strikingly different “preference” parameters depending on the type of taxation. We also obtain substantial differences between predicted adjustments to labor supply following a switch between tax regimes. Our results show that even the design of revenue-neutral reforms may be heavily distorted by the use of a unitary model on collective data. Finally, we discuss distortions affecting the welfare analysis of reforms on the basis of unitary estimates when the model generating the data is a collective model. The results suggest that increased efforts should be devoted to the estimation of collective models with taxation.

If 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.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/201684
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) in its journal Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR).

Volume (Year): 81 (2006)
Issue (Month): ()
Pages:

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:ags:inrace:201684
Contact details of provider: Postal:
INRA ESR - BP27 - 31326 Castanet Tolosan cedex

Fax: (33) 5.61.28.53.72
Web page: http://www.toulouse.inra.fr/esr/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as
in new window


  1. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1992. "Collective Labor Supply and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(3), pages 437-467, June.
  2. Haddad, Lawrence & Kanbur, Ravi, 1990. "How Serious Is the Neglect of Intra-Household Inequality?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(402), pages 866-881, September.
  3. Apps, Patricia F. & Rees, Ray, 1988. "Taxation and the household," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-369, April.
  4. Olivier Donni, 2007. "Collective female labour supply: theory and application," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(516), pages 94-119, 01.
  5. FranÚois Bourguignon, 1999. "The cost of children: May the collective approach to household behavior help?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 12(4), pages 503-521.
  6. repec:adr:anecst:y:1993:i:29:p:07 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. Laisney, François & Beninger, Denis & Beblo, Miriam, 2003. "Welfare Analysis of Fiscal Reforms: Does the Representation of the Family Decision Process Matter? Evidence for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-31, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  8. Xiaodong Gong & Arthur van Soest, 2002. "Family Structure and Female Labor Supply in Mexico City," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(1), pages 163-191.
  9. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1997. "Introducing Household Production in Collective Models of Labor Supply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 191-209, February.
  10. Gourieroux, C & Monfort, A & Renault, E, 1993. "Indirect Inference," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(S), pages 85-118, Suppl. De.
  11. Olivier Bargain & Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger & Richard Blundell & Raquel Carrasco & Maria-Concetta Chiuri & François Laisney & Valérie Lechene & Nicolas Moreau & Michal Myck & Javier Ruiz-Castillo , 2006. "Does the Representation of Household Behavior Matter for Welfare Analysis of Tax-benefit Policies? An Introduction," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 99-111, 06.
  12. Vermeulen, Frederic, 2002. " Collective Household Models: Principles and Main Results," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 533-564, September.
  13. Arthur van Soest & Isolde Woittiez & Arie Kapteyn, 1990. "Labor Supply, Income Taxes, and Hours Restrictions in the Netherlands," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(3), pages 517-558.
  14. Frederic Vermeulen & Olivier Bargain & Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger & Richard Blundell & Raquel Carrasco & Maria-Concetta Chiuri & François Laisney & Valérie Lechene & Nicolas Moreau & Michal Myck & , 2006. "Collective Models of Labor Supply with Nonconvex Budget Sets and Nonparticipation: A Calibration Approach," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 113-127, 06.
  15. M. Browning & P. A. Chiappori, 1998. "Efficient Intra-Household Allocations: A General Characterization and Empirical Tests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1241-1278, November.
  16. Rees, Ray, 1988. "Taxation and the Household," Munich Reprints in Economics 3411, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  17. Donni, Olivier, 2003. "Collective household labor supply: nonparticipation and income taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(5-6), pages 1179-1198, May.
  18. Apps, P. F. & Rees, R., 1996. "Labour supply, household production and intra-family welfare distribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 199-219, May.
  19. Dridi, Ramdan & Guay, Alain & Renault, Eric, 2007. "Indirect inference and calibration of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 397-430, February.
  20. McDonald, James B, 1984. "Some Generalized Functions for the Size Distribution of Income," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 647-663, May.
  21. Frederic Vermeulen, 2006. "A collective model for female labour supply with non-participation and taxation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 19(1), pages 99-118, February.
  22. Apps, Patricia F & Rees, Ray, 1997. "Collective Labor Supply and Household Production," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 178-190, February.
  23. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1988. "Rational Household Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 63-90, January.
  24. Browning, Martin & Francois Bourguignon & Pierre-Andre Chiappori & Valerie Lechene, 1994. "Income and Outcomes: A Structural Model of Intrahousehold Allocation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1067-1096, December.
  25. Andrew Chesher & J. M. C. Santos Silva, 2002. "Taste Variation in Discrete Choice Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 147-168.
  26. Arthur van Soest, 1995. "Structural Models of Family Labor Supply: A Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(1), pages 63-88.
  27. Patricia F. Apps & Ray Rees, 1999. "Individual versus Joint Taxation in Models with Household Production," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(2), pages 393-403, April.
  28. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  29. Hildenbrand, Werner, 1998. "How relevant are specifications of behavioral relations on the micro-level for modelling the time path of population aggregates?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 437-458, May.
  30. Brett, Craig, 1998. "Tax reform and collective family decision-making," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 425-440, December.
  31. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, August.
  32. Bergstrom, Theodore C, 1989. "A Fresh Look at the Rotten Kid Theorem--and Other Household Mysteries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1138-1159, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:inrace:201684. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.