IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iae/iaewps/wp2007n27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Guyonne Kalb

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

  • Thor O. Thoresen

    (Research Department, Statistics Norway)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Guyonne Kalb & Thor O. Thoresen, 2007. "The Case for Labour Supply Incentives: A Comparison of Family Policies in Australia and Norway," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2007n27, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    • Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2007n27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2007n27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Guyonne Kalb & Thor Thoresen, 2010. "A comparison of family policy designs of Australia and Norway using microsimulation models," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 255-287, June.
    2. Guyonne Kalb, 2009. "Children, Labour Supply and Child Care: Challenges for Empirical Analysis," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 42(3), pages 276-299, September.
    3. Ann Harding & Quoc Ngu Vu & Alicia Payne & Richard Percival, 2009. "Trends in Effective Marginal Tax Rates in Australia from 1996–97 to 2006–07," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 85(271), pages 449-461, December.

    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. Maria Donovan Fitzpatrick, 2010. "Preschoolers Enrolled and Mothers at Work? The Effects of Universal Prekindergarten," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 51-85, January.
    2. Erdal Tekin, 2004. "Single Mothers Working at Night: Standard Work, Child Care Subsidies, and Implications for Welfare Reform," NBER Working Papers 10274, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Christina Gathmann & Björn Sass, 2012. "Taxing Childcare: Effects on Family Labor Supply and Children," CESifo Working Paper Series 3776, CESifo.
    4. Herbst, Chris M. & Tekin, Erdal, 2010. "Child care subsidies and child development," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 618-638, August.
    5. Claudia Olivetti, 2006. "Changes in Women's Hours of Market Work: The Role of Returns to Experience," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 9(4), pages 557-587, October.
    6. Helmut Mahringer & Christine Zulehner, 2015. "Child-care costs and mothers’ employment rates: an empirical analysis for Austria," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 837-870, December.
    7. Robert Breunig & Xiaodong Gong & Anthony King, 2012. "Partnered Women's Labour Supply and Child‐Care Costs in Australia: Measurement Error and the Child‐Care Price," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(s1), pages 51-69, June.
    8. Denise Doiron & Guyonne Kalb, 2005. "Demands for Child Care and Household Labour Supply in Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(254), pages 215-236, September.
    9. Erdal Tekin, 2007. "Childcare Subsidies, Wages, and Employment of Single Mothers," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 42(2).
    10. Rebecca M. Blank, 2000. "Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: Fighting Poverty: Lessons from Recent U.S. History," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 3-19, Spring.
    11. Sánchez-Mangas, Rocio & Sánchez-Marcos, Virginia, 2008. "Balancing family and work: The effect of cash benefits for working mothers," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 1127-1142, December.
    12. World Bank, 2010. "Arab Republic of Egypt : Gender assessment 2010," World Bank Publications - Reports 3003, The World Bank Group.
    13. Guyonne Kalb & Thor Thoresen, 2010. "A comparison of family policy designs of Australia and Norway using microsimulation models," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 255-287, June.
    14. Xiaodong Gong & Robert Breunig, 2017. "Childcare Assistance: Are Subsidies or Tax Credits Better?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 38, pages 7-48, March.
    15. Lina Cardona-Sosa & Leonardo Morales, 2015. "Efectos laborales de los servicios de cuidado infantil: evidencia del programa Buen Comienzo," Borradores de Economia 882, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    16. Christina Gathmann & Björn Sass, 2018. "Taxing Childcare: Effects on Childcare Choices, Family Labor Supply, and Children," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(3), pages 665-709.
    17. Ruhm, Christopher J., 2008. "Maternal employment and adolescent development," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 958-983, October.
    18. Yusuf Emre Akgunduz & Janneke Plantenga, 2018. "Child Care Prices And Maternal Employment: A Meta†Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 118-133, February.
    19. Agnieszka Gehringer & Stephan Klasen, 2017. "Labor Force Participation of Women in the EU – What Role do Family Policies Play?," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 31(1), pages 15-42, March.
    20. Tiago V. de V. Cavalcanti & Jose Tavares, 2003. "Women prefer larger governments: female labor supply and public spending," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp433, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.

    More about this item

    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:iae:iaewps:wp2007n27. 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: Sheri Carnegie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.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.