IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp394.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Discrete Choice Labor Supply: Conditional Logit vs. Random Coefficient Models

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Haan

Abstract

Estimating labor supply functions using a discrete rather than a continuous specification has become increasingly popular in recent years. On basis of the German Socioeconomic Panel (GSOEP) I test which specification of discrete choice is the appropriate model for estimating labor supply: the standard conditional logit model or the random coefficient model. To the extent that effect heterogeneity is present in empirical models of labor supply functions, the application of a random coefficient model is necessary to avoid biased estimates. However, because of the complex structure, random coefficient models defy calculating confidence intervals of marginal effects or elasticities. Therefore, if heterogeneity is nonexistent or does not lead to a significant bias in the derived labor supply elasticities, standard discrete choice models provide the more favorable choice. Due to their simple structure, conditional logit models are far less computational intensive providing standard tools to calculate confidence intervals of elasticities. My findings suggest that effect heterogeneity is present when estimating a discrete choice model of labor supply drawing on data of the GSOEP. However, the labor supply elastisities derived form the specifications with and without random effects do not differ significantly. That leads to the conclusion that the standard discrete choice model, attractive for its simple structure, provides an adequate model choice for the analysis of labor supply functions based on the GSOEP.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Haan, 2004. "Discrete Choice Labor Supply: Conditional Logit vs. Random Coefficient Models," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 394, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.41156.de/dp394.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    2. Gustafsson, Siv, 1992. "Separate Taxation and Married Women's Labor Supply: A Comparison of West Germany and Sweden," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 5(1), pages 61-85, February.
    3. Richard Blundell & Alan Duncan & Julian McCrae & Costas Meghir, 2000. "The labour market impact of the working families’ tax credit," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 75-103, March.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, December.
    5. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2004. "Household Taxation, Income Splitting and Labor Supply Incentives – A Microsimulation Study for Germany," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 50(3), pages 541-568.
    6. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    7. Laisney, François & Beninger, Denis & Beblo, Miriam, 2003. "Family Tax Splitting: A Microsimulation of its Potential Labour Supply and Intra-household Welfare Effects in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-32, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Michael Gerfin & Robert E. Leu, 2003. "The Impact of In-Work Benefits on Poverty and Household Labour Supply. A simulation study for Switzerland," Diskussionsschriften dp0304, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    9. O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), 1999. "Handbook of Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    10. Bonin, Holger & Kempe, Wolfram & Schneider, Hilmar, 2002. "Household Labor Supply Effects of Low-Wage Subsidies in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 637, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal & Andrew Pickles, 2004. "GLLAMM Manual," U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1160, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    12. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal & Andrew Pickles, 2002. "Reliable estimation of generalized linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 2(1), pages 1-21, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rana HENDY & Chahir ZAKI, 2009. "Rethinking the Redistribution Effects of Trade Liberalization in Egypt : A Microsimulation Analysis," Working Papers 2009-23, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    2. Rana Hendy & Catherine Sofer, 2010. "A Collective Model of Female Labor Supply : Do Distribution Factors Matter in the Egyptian Case ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00482492, HAL.
    3. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp412 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp419 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Fuest, Clemens & Heilmann, Sven & Peichl, Andreas & Schaefer, Thilo & Bergs, Christian, 2006. "Aufkommens-, Beschäftigungs- und Wachstumswirkungen einer Reform des Steuer- und Transfersystems nach dem Bürgergeld-Vorschlag von Joachim Mitschke [Revenue, employment and growth effects of the in," FiFo Reports - FiFo-Berichte 8, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    6. Pacifico, Daniele, 2009. "A behavioral microsimulation model with discrete labour supply for Italian couples," MPRA Paper 14198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Peichl, Andreas & Fuest, Clemens & Schaefer, Thilo, 2005. "Dokumentation FiFoSiM: Integriertes Steuer-Transfer-Mikrosimulations- und CGE-Modell," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 05-3, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    8. Jinjing Li & Denisa Maria Sologon, 2014. "A Continuous Labour Supply Model in Microsimulation: A Life-Cycle Modelling Approach with Heterogeneity and Uncertainty Extension," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian, 2006. "In-work policies in Europe: Killing two birds with one stone?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 667-697, December.
    10. Arntz, Melanie & Boeters, Stefan & Gürtzgen, Nicole & Schubert, Stefanie, 2008. "Analysing welfare reform in a microsimulation-AGE model: The value of disaggregation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 422-439, May.
    11. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp421 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp472 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Mideros Andrés & O’Donoghue Cathal, 2015. "The Effect of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Adult Labour Supply: A Unitary Discrete Choice Model for the Case of Ecuador," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 225-255, December.
    14. Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas & Schaefer, Thilo, 2005. "Aufkommens-, Beschäftigungs- und Wachstumswirkungen einer Steuerreform nach dem Vorschlag von Mitschke [Revenue, employment and growth effects of the tax reform proposal by Mitschke]," FiFo Reports - FiFo-Berichte 5, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    15. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp438 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2004. "Household Taxation, Income Splitting and Labor Supply Incentives – A Microsimulation Study for Germany," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 50(3), pages 541-568.
    17. Rana Hendy & Chahir Zaki, 2013. "Assessing the Effects of Trade Liberalization on Wage Inequalities in Egypt: A Microsimulation Analysis," The International Trade Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 63-104, March.
    18. Melanie Arntz & Stefan Boeters & Nicole Gürtzgen & Stefanie Schubert, 2006. "Analysing Welfare Reform in a Microsimulation-AGE Model," Computing in Economics and Finance 2006 109, Society for Computational Economics.
    19. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2005. "Work Incentives and Labor Supply Effects of the ‘Mini-Jobs Reform’ in Germany," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 91-116, March.

    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. Peter Haan, "undated". "Conditional logit versus random coefficient models: An analysis using GLLAMM," German Stata Users' Group Meetings 2004 7, Stata Users Group.
    2. Olivier Bargain, 2004. "On modeling household labor supply with taxation," DELTA Working Papers 2004-14, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
    3. Kabátek, Jan, 2015. "Essays on public policy and household decision making," Other publications TiSEM 8cdb178e-ad98-42e5-a7e1-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Buhlmann, Florian & Hebsaker, Michael & Kreuz, Tobias & Schmidhäuser, Jakob & Siegloch, Sebastian & Stichnoth, Holger, 2022. "ZEW-EviSTA: A microsimulation model of the German tax and transfer system," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-026, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Bessho, Shun-ichiro & Hayashi, Masayoshi, 2014. "Intensive margins, extensive margins, and spousal allowances in the Japanese system of personal income taxes: A discrete choice analysis," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 162-178.
    6. Bernard Fortin & Nicolas Jacquemet & Bruce Shearer, 2008. "Policy Analysis in Health-Services Market: Accounting for Quality and Quantity," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 293-319.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp538 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Peter Haan, 2006. "Much ado about nothing: conditional logit vs. random coefficient models for estimating labour supply elasticities," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 251-256.
    10. Clauss, Markus & Schnabel, Reinhold, 2008. "Distributional and behavioural effects of the German labour market reform," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 41(4), pages 431-446.
    11. Löffler, Max & Peichl, Andreas & Pestel, Nico & Siegloch, Sebastian & Sommer, Eric, 2014. "Documentation IZA?MOD v3.0: The IZA Policy Simulation Model," IZA Discussion Papers 8553, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2012. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US: New Results," Working Papers halshs-00805736, HAL.
    13. Tibor Paul Hanappi & Sandra Müllbacher, 2016. "Tax incentives and family labor supply in Austria," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 961-987, December.
    14. Peter Haan, 2006. "Slowly, but Changing: How Does Genuine State Dependence Affect Female Labor Supply on the Extensive and Intensive Margin," JEPS Working Papers 06-002, JEPS.
    15. Maximilian Joseph Blömer & Andreas Peichl, 2020. "The ifo Tax and Transfer Behavioral Microsimulation Model," ifo Working Paper Series 335, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    16. Patricia Apps & Jan Kabátek & Ray Rees & Arthur Soest, 2016. "Labor supply heterogeneity and demand for child care of mothers with young children," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1641-1677, December.
    17. Denis Beninger & Holger Bonin & Julia Horstschräer & Grit Mühler, 2010. "Wirkungen eines Betreuungsgeldes bei bedarfsgerechtem Ausbau frühkindlicher Kindertagesbetreuung: eine Mikrosimulationsstudie," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(3), pages 147-168.
    18. Shun-ichiro Bessho & Masayoshi Hayashi, 2015. "Should the Japanese tax system be more progressive? An evaluation using the simulated SMCFs based on the discrete choice model of labor supply," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(1), pages 144-175, February.
    19. Daniele Pacifico, 2014. "On the role of unobserved preference Heterogeneity in discrete choice Models of labour supply," Working Papers 6, Department of the Treasury, Ministry of the Economy and of Finance.
    20. Geyer, Johannes & Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2015. "The effects of family policy on maternal labor supply: Combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 84-98.
    21. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian, 2006. "In-work policies in Europe: Killing two birds with one stone?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 667-697, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Labor supply; Discrete choice models; Specification test;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • 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:diw:diwwpp:dp394. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.