Skip to main content

Table 1 Labor supply elasticities in Europe: couples

From: Own-wage labor supply elasticities: variation across time and estimation methods

      

Female wage elast.

Male wage elast.

Income elast.

Country

Authors

Data selection

Model

Specification

Tax-benefit

Hours

Particip.

Hours

Particip.

Female

Male

Austria

Dearing et al. (2007)

SILC (2004), at least 1 child aged <10

D

QU; M

ITABENA

 

[.07,.19]b

    

Belgium

Orsini (2007, 2012)

Panel Survey of Belgian Households (2000–2001), working age

D

QU and GU + PTD; J

MODETE

[.16,.31]

[.10,.19]

[.10,.18]

[.08,.15]

  
 

Dagsvik et al. (2011)

National Register Data (2002), working age

D

Polynomial

MIMOSI

.44

.21

.31

.18

  

Denmark

Smith (1995)

Administrative register data (1980–1986)

C

SL

PL

.061

 

.093

 

0

−.025

 

Frederiksen et al. (2008)

Survey by Statistics Denmark (1996), age 18–59

C

SL, FC

PL

.148

 

.05

 

−.007

−.006

Finland

Kuismainen (1997)

LFS (1989), survey and tax register; 25–60

C

SL, R

PL

[0,.06]

   

[.11,.27]

 
 

Bargain and Orsini (2006)

IDS (1998), working age, men all employed

D

QU + FC; M

EUROMOD

[.10,.18]

[.10,.17]a

    

France

Bourguignon and Magnac (1990)

LFS (1985), couples aged 18–60

C/T

LL + R; M or J

PL, D

1 (.05 with FC)

 

.10

 

−.03 (−.02 with FC)/ −.11a

−.07

 

Laroque and Salanie (2002)

Matched LFS-tax returns (1999), women aged 25–49

D

Joint particip. and wage; unempl. and min. wage

Own calc.

 

(.96)

    
 

Choné et al. (2003)

Matched LFS-tax returns (1997), working age, children aged <6

D

QU, joint wage and CC; min. wage

Own calc.

1.05

[.8,.9]b

  

−.19 / −.18a

 
 

Bargain and Orsini (2006)

HBS (1994/5), working age women, men all employed

D

QU + FC; M

EUROMOD

[.52,.65]

[.46,.58]a

    
 

Donni and Moreau (2007)

HBS (2001), aged 20–60, all employed, no children aged <3

C

QL; s-conditional collective LS

No taxation

[.24,.59]

   

[ −.35, −.06]

 

Germany

Kaiser et al. (1992)

SOEP (1983), working age

C

LL

C, NC, D

1.04

 

−.04

 

−.18

−.28

 

Bonin et al. (2002)

SOEP (2000), working age, W and E

D

TL + PTD; J

IZAmod

.27

.20

.21

.19

.15/.09

.01/ 0

 

Steiner and Wrohlich (2004)

SOEP (2002), working age, W and E

D

TU + PTD; J

STSM

[.16,.55]b

[.07,.21]b

[.11,.38]b

[.07,.23]b

  
 

Haan and Steiner (2004)

SOEP (2002), working age, W and E, one- or two-earner couples

D

TU + PTD; J

STSM

[.08,.56]

[.04,.20]

[.08,.46]

[.07,.26]

  
 

Bargain and Orsini (2006)

SOEP (1998), working age, men all employed, W and E

D

QU + FC; M

EUROMOD

[.31,.45]

[.27,.38]a

    
 

Haan (2006)

SOEP (2001), W and E; married couples, 20–65 years

D

TU

STSM

[.34,.39]

[.13,.14]

[.19,.22]

[.12,.14]

  
 

Clauss and Schnabel (2006)

SOEP (2004/2005), couples aged 20–65

D

TU; J

STSM

.37

.14

.24

.16

  
 

Wrohlich (2006)

SOEP (2002), working age, W and E

D

TU; J; CC

STSM

[.14,.53]b

[.06,.16]b

    
 

Dearing et al. (2007)

SOEP (2004), at least 1 child aged <10, W

D

QU; M

STSM

 

[.13,.24]b

    
 

Bargain et al. (2010)

SOEP (2003), working age, potential one- or two-earner

D/H

QU + PTD, R; J

STSM

[.19,.34]

[.08,.20]

[.05,.08]

[.04,.13]

  
 

Fuest et al. (2008)

SOEP (2004), working age, W and E, potential one- or two-earner

D

TU+PTD;J

FiFoSiM

.38

.15

.20

.14

  

Ireland

Callan and van Soest (1996)

IDS (1987), desired hours

D/H

TU + FC, R; J

SWITCH

[.50,.85]

.31/.20a

[.10,.20]

   
 

Callan et al. (2009)

Living in Ireland Survey (1995), desired hours

D

TU + FC, R; J

SWITCH

[.71,.90]

.49

[.21,.31]

.20/.21a

  

Italy

Colombino and del Boca (1990)

Turin Survey of Couples (1979), working age

C

LL

PL

1.18

.64

  

.52

 
 

Aaberge et al. (1999)

Survey of Income and Wealth (1987), aged 20–70

A

Non-linear hours, exog. wage and unearned inc.

Own calc.

.74

.65

.053

.046

−.014

−.003

 

Aaberge et al. (2002, 2004)

Survey of Income and Wealth (1993)

A

GU; J

Own calc.

.66

.51

.12

.02

  

Netherlands

van Soest et al. (1990)

Labor mobility survey (1985), working age

C/D

LL, R; discrete wage-hours combinations

PL

[.35,.59]

.12

[.15,.19]

 

−.23

−.01

 

van Soest (1995)

SOEP (1987)

D

TU + PTD, R; J

Own calc.

[.42,.54]

 

[.05,.09]

 

.008

−.03

 

van Soest and Das (2001)

SOEP (1995), aged 16–64, desired hours

D

TU + FC, R; J

Own calc.

[.67,.74]

 

[.07,.10]

   
 

van Soest et al. (2002)

Dutch SOEP (1995), aged 16–64, desired hours

D

QU (+ more flexible) + FC, R; simult. wage estimation, J

Own calc.

[.83, 1.36]

[.35,.58]a

    
 

Bloemen (2009)

SEP (1990–2001), couples w/o children, age 22–60

D

QL

Own

[.22,.61]

 

[.24,.61]

 

−.057

 
 

Bloemen (2010)

SEP (1990–2002), couples w/o children, age 22–60

D

QU, FC

Own

[.14,.31]

 

[ −.02,.03]

   
 

Mastrogiacomo et al. (2013)

Labour Market Panel (1999–2005)

D

QU, FC

CPB model

[.22,.52]

[.17,.40]

[.05,.19]

[.05,.16]

  

Norway

Dagsvik and Strøm (2006)

Survey of Income and Wealth (1994/1995); married couples

D

Polynomial

Statistic Norway model

.65

.28

    
 

Aaberge and Colombino (2012)

Survey of Income and Wealth (1994/1995); married couples

D

Polynomial

Statistic Norway model

.21

.31

.23

.16

  

Spain

García and Suárez (2003)

ECHP (1994–1995), aged 16–65, obs. and desired hours

C

LL

Taxes

.37

1.51a

  

−.06

 
 

Fernández-Val (2003)

ECHP (1994–1999), aged <65 and in work

C

Unitary/collective model

No taxation

.31

     
 

Crespo (2006)

ECHP (1994–1999), aged <65 and in work

C

QL, unitary/collective

No taxation

.14

 

.01

   
 

Labeaga et al. (2008)

ECHP (1995), working age

D

QU + FC; J

GLAD- HISPANIA

.29

.26

.01

.11

  

Sweden

Blomquist (1983)

Level of Living Survey (1974), all employed, aged 25–55

C

LL, R

PL

  

.008

  

−.03

 

Flood and MaCurdy (1992)

Household Market-Nonmarket Survey (1983), all employed, 25–65

C

LL and SL, R

PL, D

  

[ −.25,.21]

  

[ −.01,.04]

 

Blomquist and Hansson-Brusewitz (1990)

Level of Living Survey (1981), all employed, aged 25–55

C

LL and QL, R

PL, C and NC

[.38,.77]

 

[.08,.13]

 

[ −.24, −.03]

 
 

Blomquist and Newey (2002)

Level of Living Survey (1973, 1980, 1990), all employed, aged 18–60

C

Non-parametric labor supply

PL

  

[.04,.12

   
 

Flood et al. (2004)

Household Income Survey (1993), aged 18–64

D

TU, R; stigma of W

Own calc.

.12

 

0

 

−.017

−.003

 

Brink et al. (2007)

Longitudinal Individual Data, Income Distribution Survey, 1999

D

TU, R

FASIT

.18

.15

.06

0

  

Switzerland

Gerfin and Leu (2003)

Swiss Income and Expenditure Survey (1998)

D

Quadratic utility, random preferences

Tax model for Basel-Stadt

.56

.36

.03

.01

−.06/ −.04

−.001/0

UK

Arellano and Meghir (1992)

British FES and LFS (1983), aged 20–59, with pre-school children (upper bound for all children)

C

SL + FC, search costs, endogenous wage and unearned income (IV)

PL

[.29,.71]

–

  

[ −.13, −.40]

 
 

Arrufat and Zabalza (1986)

British General Household Survey (1974), aged <60

C

CES utility-based labor supply, R

PL

[.62–2.03]

1.41

  

−.2/ −.14

 
 

Blundell and Walker (1986)

FES (1980), all employed, aged 18–59

C

Gorman polar form and translog hours, R

PL

  

.024

  

−.287

 

Blundell et al. (1987)

FES (1981), aged 16–60

T/H

Non-linear labor supply, unemployment risk

Own calc.

 

[.0,.408]

    
 

Blundell et al. (1998)

FES (1978–1992), 20–50, young children (lower bound if no child)

C

Generalized LES, R

PL

[.13,.37]b

–

  

[ −.19, 0]b

 
 

Blundell et al. (2000)

Family Resources Survey (1994–1996)

D

QU + FC, R, W

TAXBEN

[.11–.17]

     
  1. Data: Income Distribution Survey (IDS), Household Budget Survey (HBS), Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), Family Expenditure Survey (FES), Labor Force Survey (LFS), EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). For Germany: West (W), East (E). Model: C = continuous labor supply (Hausman 1981type); T = tobit model; D = discrete-choice model (van Soest 1995type); A = estimation of joint distributions of wage and hours (sets of hour-wage opportunities vary across individuals); H = double hurdle model (labor supply and risk of unemployment). Specification: for Hausman model, labor supply is either linear (LL), quadratic (QL), or semi-log (SL); in discrete-choice models, utility is either quadratic (QU), translog (TU), or generalized Stone-Geary (GU); random preferences are sometimes accounted for (R) as well additional flexibility, either through fixed costs (FC) or part-time dummies (PTD). Models are male-chauvinistic (M) or account for joint decision in couples (J). Welfare program participation (W). Childcare costs (CC). Tax-benefit: Hausman model often accounts for piecewise linear budget set (PL) or more generally convex set (C); non-convexities are sometimes accounted for (NC); differentiability of the budget function can be used (D); with discrete choice models, complete tax-benefit systems are simulated and we indicate the name of the microsimulation model when it is known. Elasticities: brackets indicate the range of values for all specifications (or the confidence interval when available). bindicates that the range also includes values for different age and number of children. Particip. = participation elasticities, corresponding to the increase in employment rate in % points, except when indicated by a(in that case, % increase in employment rate). For Spain, several additional references are cited in García and Suárez (2003) which point to similar elasticities as in the basic model in this study
Back to article page