Skip to main content

Table 3 Labor supply elasticities for the USA

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

     Female wage elast. Male wage elast. Income elast.
Authors Data selection Model Specification Hours Particip. Hours Particip. Female Male
Cogan (1981) US NLSW 1967, married women aged 30–35 C SL; reservation hours to account for FC; no tax-benefit [.86, 2.40]     [.16,.66]  
Hausman (1981) PSID 1975, married women C LL, PL (C and NC: FC) [.90, 1.00]     [ −.13, −.12]  
Triest (1990) PSID 1983, married women, aged 25–55 C LL; C and PL; taxes and benefits [.03,.28]     [ −.15, −.19]  
MaCurdy et al. (1990) PSID 1975: married men, aged 25–55 C LL; PL and D (reconvexified) budget set; taxes    [ −.24,.03]   −.01  
Dickert et al. (1995) SIPP 1990, single mothers, no assets D Joint program and labor force participation   .35     
Pencavel (1998) CPS 1975–1994, married women, aged 25–60 C Log-L; no tax-benefit   [.77,.1.80]     
  CPS 1975–1994, single women, aged 25–60    [.77,.1.80]      
Hoynes (1996) SIPP panel, 1984, married men and women with children D Stone-Geary; stigma from AFDC; tax-benefit system; FC      −.46 −.12
Keane and Moffitt (1998) 1994 SIPP, single mothers, no assets D Joint labor supply and welfare program participation; benefits but no tax   .96     
Pencavel (2002) CPS 1999, married men C LL; no tax-benefit    [.12,.25]    
  CPS 1999, single men      [.12,.25]    
Devereux (2003) Census and PSID, married men C Log-L, no tax-benefit    [ −.022,.017] [ −.061,.001]   
  Single men      [ −.022,.017] [ −.061,.001]   
Devereux (2004) PUMS 1980, 1990, married couples (participating men) C Log-L, no tax-benefit [.17,.38]   [.00,.07]    
Eissa and Hoynes (2004) CPS 1985 to 1997, less educated married couples with children D Participation Probit, joint estimation   .27   .03 −.039 −.007
Blau and Kahn (2007) CPS 1980, married men and women age 25–54 C Log-L [.77,.88]   [.01,.07]   .004 .001
  CPS 1990 C Log-L [.58,.64]   [.10,.14]   .002 .002
  CPS 2000 C Log-L [.36,.41]   [.04,.10]   .001 .002
Heim (2007) CPS, 1979–2003, married women   SL, participation, some account for tax .36 (1979) to.14 (2003) .66 (1979) to.03 (2003)    −.05 (1979) to −.015 (2003)  
Heim (2009) PSID 2001, couples   Quadratic utility with continuous labor supply, J, FC, R [.24,.33] [.07,.18] [.04,.07] [.00,.003] [ −.007, −.006] −.0007
Bishop et al. (2009) CPS, 1979–2003, sing. women   SL, participation, some account for tax .14 (1979) to −.03 (2003) .28 (1979) to.22 (2003)    −.014 (1979) to −.019 (2003)  
  1. Data: Current Population Survey (CPS), National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Mature Women (NLSW), Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID), Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Model: C= continuous labor supply (Hausman 1981type); D = discrete-choice model (often a simple participation probit). Specification: Hausman labor supply is either linear (LL), log-linear (Log-L), or semi-log (SL); random preferences are sometimes accounted for (R) as well as fixed costs (FC). Models sometimes account for piecewise linear budget set (PL) or more generally convex set (C) or non-convexities (NC) and differentiable budget constraint (D). Elasticities: brackets indicate ranges of values over different specifications or reported confidence intervals. Participation elasticities (“particip”): increase in employ. rate in % points