IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_7658.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Political economy of redistribution between traditional and modern families

Author

Listed:
  • Volker Meier

    ()

  • Matthew D. Rablen

Abstract

We analyse a model in which families may either be “traditional” single-earner with caring for the child at home or “modern” double-earner households using market child care. Family policies may favour either the one or the other group, like market care subsidies vs. cash for care. Policies are determined by probabilistic voting, where allocative and distributional impacts matter, both within and across groups. Due to its impact on intragroup distribution, both types of households are likely to receive subsidies. In early stages of development where most households are traditional, implemented policies favour them, though to a small extent. Net subsidies to traditional households are highest in some intermediate stage, which may explain the implementation of cash for care policies. Such policies will be tightened again in late stages of development, where the vast majority of voters come from modern households. Finally, in an environment in which many traditional households are not entitled to vote (immigrants who have not yet obtained citizenship), redistribution toward them may be abolished and in extreme cases even replaced by net transfers to modern households.

Suggested Citation

  • Volker Meier & Matthew D. Rablen, 2019. "Political economy of redistribution between traditional and modern families," CESifo Working Paper Series 7658, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_7658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp7658.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1996. "Public Provision of Private Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 57-84, February.
    2. Sören Blomquist & Vidar Christiansen & Luca Micheletto, 2010. "Public Provision of Private Goods and Nondistortionary Marginal Tax Rates," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 1-27, May.
    3. David Domeij, 2013. "Should Day Care be Subsidized?," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 568-595.
    4. Blomquist, Soren & Christiansen, Vidar, 1999. "The political economy of publicly provided private goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 31-54, July.
    5. Borck, Rainald & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2011. "Preferences for childcare policies: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 436-454, September.
    6. Havnes, Tarjei & Mogstad, Magne, 2011. "Money for nothing? Universal child care and maternal employment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1455-1465.
    7. Meier, Volker & Rainer, Helmut, 2015. "Pigou meets Ramsey: Gender-based taxation with non-cooperative couples," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 28-46.
    8. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2004. "Fertility, Taxation and Family Policy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(4), pages 745-763, December.
    9. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2012. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US: New Results," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 525, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    10. Bergstrom, Ted & Blomquist, Soren, 1996. "The political economy of subsidized day care," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 443-457, November.
    11. Emmanuel Saez, 2002. "Optimal Income Transfer Programs: Intensive versus Extensive Labor Supply Responses," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 1039-1073.
    12. Spencer Bastani & Sören Blomquist & Luca Micheletto, 2020. "Child Care Subsidies, Quality, and Optimal Income Taxation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1-37, November.
    13. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    14. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2018. "Optimal family taxation and income inequality," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(5), pages 1093-1128, October.
    15. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2011. "Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US," Working Papers 201114, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    16. Boskin, Michael J. & Sheshinski, Eytan, 1983. "Optimal tax treatment of the family: Married couples," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 281-297, April.
    17. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.
    18. Alexander Kemnitz & Marcel Thum, 2015. "Gender Power, Fertility, and Family Policy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(1), pages 220-247, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Coughlin, Peter & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1981. "Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare maxima," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 113-121, February.
    21. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E., 1996. "Ends against the middle: Determining public service provision when there are private alternatives," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 297-325, November.
    22. Apps, Patricia & Rees, Ray, 2018. "Optimal family taxation and income inequality," Munich Reprints in Economics 62832, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    23. Bergstrom, Ted & Blomquist, Soren, 1996. "The political economy of subsidized day care," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 443-457, November.
    24. Gerhard Glomm & Volker Meier, 2016. "Modes of Child Care," CESifo Working Paper Series 6287, CESifo.
    25. Browning, Edgar K, 1975. "Why the Social Insurance Budget Is Too Large in a Democracy," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 13(3), pages 373-388, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerhard Glomm & Volker Meier, 2020. "Efficient child care subsidies: any need for cash for care?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 773-793, September.
    2. Gerhard Glomm & Volker Meier, 2016. "Modes of Child Care," CESifo Working Paper Series 6287, CESifo.
    3. Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2014. "Toward an efficiency rationale for the public provision of private goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 375-408, June.
    4. Takuya Obara & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2020. "Optimal Taxation in an Endogenous Fertility Model with Non-Cooperative Couples," Discussion Paper Series 211, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Jan 2021.
    5. Volker Meier & Helmut Rainer, 2017. "Daddy months," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 875-892, July.
    6. Jacobs, Bas & Jongen, Egbert L.W. & Zoutman, Floris T., 2017. "Revealed social preferences of Dutch political parties," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 81-100.
    7. Volker Meier & Helmut Rainer, 2017. "Daddy months," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 875-892, July.
    8. Takuya Obara & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2021. "Optimal Taxation in an Endogenous Fertility Model with Non-Cooperative Couples," Working Papers e157, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    9. Luksic, Jan, 2020. "The extensive macro labor supply elasticity: Integrating taxes and expenditures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Dan Anderberg, 2007. "Inefficient households and the mix of government spending," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 127-140, April.
    11. Laura Mayoral & Joan Esteban, 2019. "A politico-economic model of public expenditure and income taxation," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 479-507, November.
    12. Mauro Mastrogiacomo & Nicole M. Bosch & Miriam D. A. C. Gielen & Egbert L. W. Jongen, 2017. "Heterogeneity in Labour Supply Responses: Evidence from a Major Tax Reform," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(5), pages 769-796, October.
    13. Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay & Joan Esteban, 2007. "Redistributive Taxation and Public Expenditures," Economics Series Working Papers 366, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. Borck, Rainald & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2011. "Preferences for childcare policies: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 436-454, September.
    15. Henk-Wim de Boer & Egbert Jongen & Patrick Koot, 2018. "Optimal Taxation of Secondary Earners in the Netherlands: Has Equity Lost Ground?," CPB Discussion Paper 375.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. Henk-Wim de Boer & Egbert Jongen & Patrick Koot, 2018. "Optimal Taxation of Secondary Earners in the Netherlands: Has Equity Lost Ground?," CPB Discussion Paper 375, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    17. Henk-Wim de Boer & Egbert Jongen & Jan Kabatek, 2014. "The effectiveness of fiscal stimuli for working parents," CPB Discussion Paper 286.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    18. Henk-Wim de Boer & Egbert Jongen & Jan Kabatek, 2014. "The effectiveness of fiscal stimuli for working parents," CPB Discussion Paper 286, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    19. David Domeij, 2013. "Should Day Care be Subsidized?," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 568-595.
    20. Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay & Joan Esteban, 2009. "Redistributive Taxation, Public Expenditure, and Size of Governent," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 799.09, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    redistribution; child care; subsidies; family policy; labour supply;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J18 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Public Policy
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_7658. 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: (Klaus Wohlrabe). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.