IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/arqudp/217.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Arbeiten Frauen aufgrund des Ehegattensplittings weniger? Ein quasi-experimenteller Ansatz für Deutschland

Author

Listed:
  • Chirvi, Malte

Abstract

Die vorliegende Arbeit soll einen Beitrag zur Klärung der Frage leisten, ob das Ehegattensplitting, wie in vielen Arbeiten behauptet, einen negativen Einfluss auf das Arbeitsverhalten verheirateter Frauen hat. Hierzu wird für Deutschland erstmals ein quasi-experimenteller Ansatz gewählt, bei dem anhand des allgemeinen Effekts der Heirat auf das Erwerbsverhalten der heiratenden Frauen die Wirkung des Ehegattensplittings identifiziert wird. Die Veränderung des Arbeitsverhaltens heiratender Frauen wird dabei der Veränderung bei jenen Frauen gegenübergestellt, die im gleichen Zeitraum weiterhin mit ihrem festen Partner zusammenleben, ohne zu heiraten (Kontrollgruppe). Die Ergebnisse sprechen eindeutig gegen einen unmittelbaren negativen Effekt des Ehegattensplittings auf das Erwerbsverhalten von Frauen. Jedoch reduzieren heiratende und zeitgleich ein Kind bekommende Frauen ihre Erwerbstätigkeit stärker als gebärende Frauen in der Kontrollgruppe.

Suggested Citation

  • Chirvi, Malte, 2017. "Arbeiten Frauen aufgrund des Ehegattensplittings weniger? Ein quasi-experimenteller Ansatz für Deutschland," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 217, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:arqudp:217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keane, Michael P., 2010. "Structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 3-20, May.
    2. repec:adr:anecst:y:2012:i:105-106:p:7 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. Fitzenberger, Bernd & Sommerfeld, Katrin & Steffes, Susanne, 2013. "Causal effects on employment after first birth — A dynamic treatment approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 49-62.
    5. Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang, 2016. "Declining Female Labor Supply Elasticities in the United States and Implications for Tax Policy: Evidence From Panel Data," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 69(3), pages 481-516, September.
    6. Wolfram Kempe, 1996. "Das Arbeitsangebot verheirateter Frauen in den neuen und alten Bundesländern," Statistische Diskussionsbeiträge 2, Universität Potsdam, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    7. Fredriksson, Peter & Johansson, Per, 2008. "Dynamic Treatment Assignment," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 435-445.
    8. Wolpin, Kenneth I., 2013. "The Limits of Inference without Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262019086, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number minc74-1.
    11. Bruce Wydick, 2007. "Grandma was Right: Why Cohabitation Undermines Relational Satisfaction, But Is Increasing Anyway," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 617-645, November.
    12. Bargain, Olivier B. & Orsini, Kristian & Peichl, Andreas, 2011. "Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 5820, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2019. "A Theory of Statistical Inference for Matching Methods in Causal Research," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 46-68, January.
    14. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2011. "Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 345-361.
    15. Denis Beninger & François Laisney & Miriam Beblo, 2007. "Welfare analysis of a tax reform for Germany: a comparison of the unitary and collective models of household labour supply," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 869-893, October.
    16. Adamopoulou, Effrosyni, 2010. "Will you “quasi-marry” me? The rise of cohabitation and decline of marriages," UC3M Working papers. Economics we1026, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    17. Puhani, Patrick A., 1995. "Labour supply of married women in Poland: a microeconometric study based on the Polish labour force survey," ZEW Discussion Papers 95-12, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Hans-Peter Blossfeld & Erik Klijzing & Katharina Pohl & Götz Rohwer, 1999. "Why Do Cohabiting Couples Marry? An Example of a Causal Event History Approach to Interdependent Systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 229-242, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Schooling and Earnings," NBER Chapters, in: Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, pages 41-63, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. 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.
    22. Gert G. Wagner & Joachim R. Frick & Jürgen Schupp, 2007. "The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 127(1), pages 139-169.
    23. Rust, John, 2010. "Comments on: "Structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics" by Michael Keane," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 21-24, May.
    24. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1.
    25. Angrist, Joshua D. & Krueger, Alan B., 1999. "Empirical strategies in labor economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1277-1366, Elsevier.
    26. LaLumia, Sara, 2008. "The effects of joint taxation of married couples on labor supply and non-wage income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1698-1719, July.
    27. Del Boca, Daniela, 2015. "Child Care Arrangements and Labor Supply," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 6812, Inter-American Development Bank.
    28. Daniela Del Boca, 2015. "The impact of child care costs and availability on mothers’ labor supply," ImPRovE Working Papers 15/04, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    29. Matthijs Kalmijn & Anneke Loeve & Dorien Manting, 2007. "Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 44(1), pages 159-179, February.
    30. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution, Work Incentives, and Household Welfare?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 64(1), pages 115-142, March.
    31. Tineke Fokkema & Aart C. Liefbroer, 2008. "Trends in living arrangements in Europe: Convergence or divergence?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(36), pages 1351-1418.
    32. Kay Blaufus & Jonathan Bob & Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Christian Sielaff & Dirk Kiesewetter & Joachim Weimann, 2015. "Perception of income tax rates: evidence from Germany," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 457-478, December.
    33. Wolf, Elke, 2010. "Lohndifferenziale zwischen Vollzeit- und Teilzeitbeschäftigten in Ost- und Westdeutschland," WSI Working Papers 174, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    34. Hans Fehr & Manuel Kallweit & Fabian Kindermann, 2015. "Reforming Family Taxation in Germany - Labor Supply versus Insurance Effects," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 71(1), pages 53-81, March.
    35. Stefan Bach & Johannes Geyer & Peter Haan & Katharina Wrohlich, 2011. "Reform des Ehegattensplittings: nur eine reine Individualbesteuerung erhöht die Erwerbsanreize deutlich," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 78(41), pages 13-19.
    36. Katherin Barg & Miriam Beblo, 2012. "Does "Sorting into Specialization" Explain the Differences in Time Use between Married and Cohabiting Couples? An Empirical Application for Germany," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 105-106, pages 127-152.
    37. Daniela Del Boca, 2015. "Child Care Arrangements and Labor Supply," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 88074, Inter-American Development Bank.
    38. Paul Bernd Spahn & Helmut Kaiser & Thomas Kassella, 1992. "The tax dilemma of married women in Germany," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 13(2), pages 22-47, May.
    39. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2012. "Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    40. Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang, 2015. "Declining female labor supply elasticities in the U.S. and implications for tax policy: evidence from panel data," Working Papers 1501, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    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. Schätzlein, Uwe, 2019. "Ehegattensplitting und negative Arbeitsanreize: Ein mikroökonomischer Ansatz zur Negation der steuerrechtlichen Relevanz," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 244, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.

    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. Chirvi, Malte, 2019. "Arbeiten Frauen aufgrund des Ehegattensplittings weniger? Eine empirische Untersuchung für Deutschland," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 241, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    2. Hans Fehr & Manuel Kallweit & Fabian Kindermann, 2013. "Reforming Family Taxation in Germany - Labor Supply vs. Insurance Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 4386, CESifo.
    3. Löffler, Max & Peichl, Andreas & Siegloch, Sebastian, 2013. "Validating Structural Labor Supply Models," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79819, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Melanie Schröder & Norma Burow, 2016. "Couple's Labor Supply, Taxes, and the Division of Housework in a Gender-Neutral Lab," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1593, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Kai-Uwe Müller & Michael Neumann & Katharina Wrohlich, 2018. "Labor Supply under Participation and Hours Constraints," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1758, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Chiara Daniela Pronzato, 2015. "Fighting Lone Mothers’ Poverty Through In-Work Benefits: Methodological Issues and Policy Suggestions," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 95-122.
    7. Doreen Triebe, 2013. "Wo(men) at Work?: The Impact of Cohabiting and Married Partners' Earning on Women's Work Hours," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 614, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    8. Chiara Daniela Pronzato, 2014. "Fighting Lone Mothers’ Poverty through In-Work Benefits. Methodological Issues and Policy Suggestions," CHILD Working Papers Series 23, Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic Economics (CHILD) - CCA.
    9. Zhiyang Jia & Thor O. Thoresen & Trine E. Vattø & Thor Olav Thoresen, 2024. "Explaining the Declining Labor Supply Responsiveness of Married Women," CESifo Working Paper Series 11176, CESifo.
    10. Pronzato, Chiara D., 2012. "Comparing Quasi-Experimental Designs and Structural Models for Policy Evaluation: The Case of a Reform of Lone Parental Welfare," IZA Discussion Papers 6803, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Margit Schratzenstaller-Altzinger & Fanny Dellinger, 2018. "Genderdifferenzierte Lenkungswirkungen des Abgabensystems auf das Arbeitsangebot," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 91(2), pages 105-120, February.
    12. Kamil Galuscak & Gabor Katay, 2014. "Labour Force Participation and Tax-Benefit Systems: A Cross-Country Comparative Perspective," Working Papers 2014/10, Czech National Bank.
    13. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2014. "Comparing inequality aversion across countries when labor supply responses differ," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(5), pages 845-873, October.
    14. Nico Pestel, 2017. "Marital Sorting, Inequality and the Role of Female Labour Supply: Evidence from East and West Germany," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(333), pages 104-127, January.
    15. Håkan Selin, 2014. "The rise in female employment and the role of tax incentives. An empirical analysis of the Swedish individual tax reform of 1971," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(5), pages 894-922, October.
    16. Zuzana Siebertova & Matus Senaj & Norbert Svarda & Jana Valachyova, 2015. "To Work or Not to Work? Updated Estimates of Labour Supply Elasticities," Working Papers Working Paper No. 3/2015, Council for Budget Responsibility.
    17. Shelly Lundberg, 2012. "Personality and marital surplus," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Tina Haussen, 2018. "Intra-Household Income Inequality and Preferences for Redistribution," Jena Economics Research Papers 2018-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Nico Pestel, 2014. "Beyond Inequality Accounting: Marital Sorting and Couple Labor Supply," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 698, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • 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:zbw:arqudp:217. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.arqus.info/ .

    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.