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.
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.