In-Kind Transfers and Work Incentives
Recent developments in rationing theory are used to examine the differences between the effects of in-kind and cash transfers on labor supply. It is not possible to tell a priori which type of transfer will cause the greater reduction in hours of work; the answer depends on the extent to which in-kind transfers distort consumption choices and on the relationship between the transferred commodities and leisure. Hicks-Allen complements can cause greater reductions in labor supply than equally generous cash transfers, while strong Hicks-Allen substitutes can induce increases in market work. Copyright 1988 by University of Chicago Press.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlabec:v:6:y:1988:i:4:p:515-29. 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: (Journals Division)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.