Skip to main content

Table 2 Labor supply elasticities in Europe: single individuals

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

      

Wage elast.

Income

Country

Authors

Data selection

Model

Specification

Tax-benefit

Hours

Particip.

Elast.

Belgium

Dagsvik et al. (2011)

National Register Data, 2002, working age, SW

D

Polynomial

MIMOSI

.13

.07

 
  

SM

   

.2

.11

 

Finland

Bargain and Orsini (2006)

IDS (1998), SW, SP

D

QU + FC

EUROMOD

[.18,.34]

[.18,.33]

 

France

Bargain and Orsini (2006)

HBS (1994/1995), aged 25–49, SW, SP

D

QU + FC

EUROMOD

[.08,.14]

[.04,.07]

 
 

Laroque and Salanie (2002)

LFS-tax return matched dataset (1999), women aged 25–49, no civil servants, SW

D

Participation (and full/part-time) model, simultaneous wage and labor supply estimation, probability of unemployment, min. wage

Own calc.

 

.36

 

Germany

Bargain and Orsini (2006)

SOEP (1998), SW, SP

D

QU + FC

EUROMOD

[.09,.18]

[.08,.15]

 
 

Steiner and Wrohlich (2004)

SOEP (2003), SW

D

TU + PTD

STSM

[.20,.36]

[.05,.09]

 
 

Haan and Steiner (2004)

SOEP (2002), SW

D

TU + PTD

STSM

[.02,.24]

[.01,.10]

 
  

SM

   

[.08,.31]

[.04,.28]

 
 

Clauss and Schnabel (2006)

SOEP (2004/2005), aged 20–65, SW

D

TU + PTD

STSM

.38

.18

 
  

SM

   

.23

.17

 
 

Haan and Uhlendorff (2007)

SOEP (2000-2005), age 25–59, SM

D

Reduced form risk model; non-parametric random coefficient

STSM

[.016,.036]

[.05,.12]

 
 

Fuest et al. (2008)

SOEP (2004), working age, SW

D

TU + PTD

FiFoSiM

.28

.13

 
  

SM

   

.28

.17

 
 

Bargain et al. (2010)

SOEP (2003), working age, SW

D/H

QU + PTD; involuntary unemployment

STSM

[.06,.16]

[.04,.10]

 
  

SM

   

[.10,.20]

[.05,.12]

 

Italy

Aaberge et al. (2002)

Survey on Household Income and Wealth (1993), SW

A

GU

Own calc.

.10

.06

 
  

SM

   

.11

.08

 

Netherlands

Euwals and Van Soest (1999)

Dutch SOEP (1988), actual and desired hours, SW

D

TU + FC, R

Own calc.

[.03,.45]

  
  

SM

   

[.03,.18]

  
 

Mastrogiacomo et al. (2013)

Labour Market Panel, 1999–2005, SW

D

QU, FC

CPB Model

[.04,.62]

[.01,.43]

 
  

SM

   

[.14,.45]

[.09,.32]

 

Norway

Aaberge and Colombino (2012)

Survey of Income and Wealth (1994/1995); SW

D

Polynomial

Statistic Norway model

−.09

.12

 
  

SM

   

−.02

.04

 

Sweden

Andrén (2003)

HINK (1997–1998), SP

D

QU + FC; simulat. with W and CC

Own calc.

[.55,.87]

.50

−.1

 

Brink et al. (2007)

Longitudinal Individual Data, IDS, 1999, SP

D

TU, R

FASIT

.51

.35

 

UK

Walker (1990)

FES (1979–1984), SP

D

Participation model

Benefits only

 

.70

 
 

Ermisch and Wright (1991)

General household survey (1973–1982), SP

D

Participation model, demand-side controls

Simplified system

 

1.7

 
 

Jenkins (1992)

Lone parents survey (1989), SP

D + H

Two positive hour choices, unemployment risk, FC

Benefits only

 

1.8

 
 

Blundell et al. (1992)

FES (1981–1986), SP

C

Marginal rate of substitution function, endogenous wage and income

Taxation only

 

.34

 
 

Brewer et al. (2006)

FES (1995–2002), aged <60, SP

D

QU + FC, joint with W and CC, R

TAXBEN

 

1.02

 
  1. Data and selection: Income Distribution Survey (IDS), Household Budget Survey (HBS), Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), Family Expenditure Survey (FES), Labor Force Survey (LFS); Selection: single women (SW), single men (SM), single parents/mothers (SP). Model: C = continuous LS (Hausman 1981type); T = tobit model; D = discrete 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 (R); fixed costs (FC); welfare 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 obtained in function of the specification at use or the confidence interval when available. Particip. = participation elasticities, corresponding to the increase in employment rate in percentage points
Back to article page