IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Case for Labour Supply Incentives: A Comparison of Family Policies in Australia and Norway

Listed author(s):
  • Guyonne Kalb


    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne)

  • Thor O. Thoresen

    (Research Department, Statistics Norway)

Many of the Australian family support schemes are income-tested transfers, targeted towards the lower end of the income distribution, whereas the Norwegian approach is to provide subsidised non-parental care services for families and universal family payments. Using microsimulation models developed in Australia and Norway, we discuss the scope for introducing policy changes to encourage parents’ labour supply within these two types of family transfer designs. The analysis highlights that the case for labour supply encouraging policy changes is restricted by the economic environment and the role that has been given to family policy in the two countries. Whereas there is considerable potential for increased labour supply of Australian mothers, for example through a move towards a Nordic style family policy design, improving labour supply incentives may have detrimental distributional effects and is likely to be costly. The Norwegian situation is different: mothers already have high labour supply and any adverse distributional effects of further labour supply incentives occur in an economy with low initial income dispersion. However, the large amount of resources already used for family support in the Norwegian case, does not promote further initiatives which would benefit this segment of the population. This paper aims to examine three different types of effect arising from a policy change making the Australian familyrelated payments universal and a policy change reducing the cost of childcare in both countries. The types of effect considered are changes in labour supply, income distribution and the cost to government.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne in its series Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series with number wp2007n27.

in new window

Length: 56 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2007
Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2007n27
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia

Phone: +61 3 8344 2100
Fax: +61 3 8344 2111
Web page:

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.:

in new window

  1. Patricia M. Anderson & Philip B. Levine, 1999. "Child Care and Mothers' Employment Decisions," NBER Working Papers 7058, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Gregory Acs & Eric Toder, 2007. "Should we subsidize work? Welfare reform, the earned income tax credit and optimal transfers," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(3), pages 327-343, June.
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:iae:iaewps:wp2007n27. 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: (Abbey Treloar)

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.