social evaluation of alternative basic income schemes in italy r. aaberge (statistics norway, oslo)...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Evaluation of Alternative Basic Income
Schemes in Italy
• R. Aaberge (Statistics Norway, Oslo)
• U. Colombino (Department of Economics, Torino)
• S. Strøm (Department of Economics, Oslo)
We develop a model of labor supply which
features:
• simultaneous treatment of spouses’ decisions
• exact representation of complex tax rules
• quantity constraints on the choice of hours of work
• choice among jobs that differ with respect to hours, wage rate and other characteristics
Traditional approach
max U(C, h)
s.t.
C=f(wh, I)
h0,T]
where:
C = net income
h = hours of work
w = wage rate
I = other income
T = total available time
f( ) = tax rule
Our approach
max U(C, h, j)
s.t.
C=f(wh, I)
(h, w, j) B
where:
j = other job characteristics
B = opportunity set
The approach we use is different from the
traditional approach
• Traditional model:
max U(C, h)
s.t.
C = f(wh, I)
h0,T]
• Our
model:
max U(C, h, j)
s.t.
C = f(wh,I)
(h, w, j) B
The opportunity set in the traditional approach
h
w
T0
The Flat Tax
0
Gross Income
Net Income
45o
FT
The Negative Income Tax
0
Gross Income
Net Income
45o
NIT
G
The Workfare Scheme
0
Gross Income
Net Income
45o
WF
G
Hmin
The opportunity set in our model (the numbers represent hypothetical
densities or relative frequencies of alternatives in the corresponding
“spot”)
0.1
0.3
0.025
h
w
0
0.20.01
0.1
0.15
0.015
Jobs differ not only w.r.t. wage (w) and
hours (h) but also other characteristics ()
h
w
w0
h0
0
(w0 , h0 , 0 )
-
+
The opportunity set contains different
number of jobs with different characteristics
• This is taken into account by specifying a frequency or density function:
• p(h,w) = density of jobs with hours and wage (h,w).
Basic assumptions
• U(C, h, j) = V(C, h) (h,w,j) =V(f(wh,I), h)
(h,w,j)
• V(f(wh,I), h) is the systematic component
(h,w,j) is the stochastic component
• Prob( < u) = exp(-1/u)
Choice probability
Given the assumptions, the probability (density) that the household chooses a job (h,w) is given by:
B y xdxdy y x p h I yx f V
h)p(h,w) V(f(wh,I),w h
) , () , ( ) ), , ( (
) , (
Imputation of the choice set
• The choice set B is in principle infinite
• In the estimation and simulation, B is replaced by a subset A B
• Subset A contains 200 elements (jobs) sampled according to a procedure (“importance” sampling) suggested by McFadden (1978)
Importance Sampling of the Sub-Set A
• Estimate an empirical density q(h,w)
• If A must contain M elements, sample M-1 points from q(h,w)
• Add the chosen job to make a set A containing M elements
The choice density, given choice-set A, then
becomes:
]),(/[)],(/[
)\,(
)(
Ax,yyxqp(x,y)x)V(f(yx,I),
whqp(h,w)h)V(f(wh,I),Awh
The key differences with respect to other discrete choice models of labour
supply are:
• Our discrete model is an estimation device for an underlying continuous model
• In other discrete choice model of labour supply the choice set is typically fixed a-priori an equal for every one
• In our model we estimate the composition of the choice set (i.e. p(h,w)), which can differ from household to household
Model Estimation
By specifying parametric forms for V( ) and p( ) we can estimate the parameters of the utility function V( ) and of the opportunity density p( ) by Maximul Likelihood
Model Specification
• V(C, h) is a Box-Cox form
• p(h,w) = g1(h)g2(w)g0
• p(0,0) = 1-g0
• g1(h) is uniform with a “peak”for full time
• g2(w) is log-normal
• g0 is a logistic function [0,1] of personal characteristics
The data
• We use the Bank of Italy’s Survey of Household Income and Wealth 1993
• We exclude single person households
• Both partners must belong to the age group 18-54
• Retired and self-employed are excluded
• The selected sample contains 2160 households
Policy Simulation
• A policy is a change in the opportunity set B and/or in the tax rule f( )
• Let B be the new opportunity set and f the new tax rule
• In order to simulate household behavior we solve the new problem:
max U(C, h, j)
s.t.
C = f(wh, I)
(h,w,j) B
We simulate the effects of three tax reforms:
• A flat tax (FT)
• A negative income tax, with a guaranteed income equal to 3/4 the poverty level (NIT)
• A workfare system with a guaranteed income equal to 3/4 the poverty level, provided that the household works at least 1000 hours (WF)
It turns out that you can generate the same tax revenue either with:
• The 1993 tax rule
• A 18.4% FT
• A NIT that supports income up to 3/4 the poverty level and then applies a 28,4% tax rate
• A WF that requires 1000 hours worked, supports income up to 3/4 the poverty level and then applies a 27,3% tax rate
Wife’s participation rate under alternative tax rules
40
40,5
41
41,5
42
42,5
43
43,5
44
44,5
45
part. 43,7 45 41,9 42,5
Basis(93) FT NIT WF
Wife’s hours of work (if employed) under alternative tax
rules
1570
1580
1590
1600
1610
1620
1630
hours 1590 1623 1589 1597
Basis(93) FT NIT WF
Husband’s hours of work (if employed) under alternative tax
rules
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
hours 1972 2036 1976 2001
Basis(93) FT NIT WF
Household gross (Y) and net (C) income under alternative tax rules
(000000 ITL)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Basis(93)FTNITWF
Basis(93) 54,5 43,2
FT 60,2 49,1
NIT 55,9 44,8
WF 56,7 45,7
Y C
Gini coefficients for the distribution of disposable
household income
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
Basis(93)FTNITWF
Basis(93) 0,323 0,282
FT 0,332 0,332
NIT 0,343 0,298
WF 0,336 0,301
Y C
Disposable income variations under alternative tax reforms, by 1993 disposable income decile
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
I 4 3,8 3,2
II 3,6 1,4 2,1
III-VIII 5 1 2
IX 8 1,7 2,9
X 14,3 3,9 5,5
FT NIT WF
Measurement of Utility
Vi(mi, wi, fk) =
utility reached by household i when endowed with exogenous income mi
and wages wi, under tax regime fk
Measurement of Utility
Equivalent Income yik:
(King 1983)
Vi(mi, wi, fk) = VR(yik, wR, f*)
The Efficiency Effect is the percentage variation
of average utility (as measured by equivalent
income)
The equality effect is based on Atkinson’s Index in the case of
SWak and on Aaberge (1992) in the case of
SWbk
The percentage variations of both Sak
and Sbk can be decomposed into an
Efficiency Effect and an Equality Effect
Social Welfare
King (1983):
SWak= i(yik)1-a /(1-a)a = inequality aversion parameter
Aaberge (1992):
SWbk = iyik(1-F(yik)b-1 )b/(b-1)b = inverse inequality aversion parameter
where F is the distribution function of y under tax regime k.
Welfare Gain of Household i from the reform (f0 to f1)
WGi(0,1) = yi1 - yi0
Percentage of “welfare-winners” under alternative tax reforms
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
% 51,8 55 55,6
FT NIT WF
Percentage of “welfare-winners” under alternative tax reforms, by 1993 welfare level (equivalent
income) decile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
I 41,5 65,3 64,8
II 43,5 59,2 59,3
III-VIII 52 54,6 55,4
IX 60,1 51,4 52,6
X 60,9 46,2 47,6
FT NIT WF
Percentage of “welfare-winners” under alternative tax reforms, by 1993 household income decile
0
20
40
60
80
100
I 14,1 74,1 66,7
II 19 43,7 45,8
III-VIII 51,3 44,8 50,9
IX 86,5 51,1 60,4
X 90,6 64,9 71,5
FT NIT WF
Percentage of “welfare-winners” under alternative tax reforms, by 1993 household income decile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
I II III-VIII IX X
FTNITWF
Percentage of “welfare-winners” under alternative tax reforms, by 1993 welfare (equivalent income)
decile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
I II III-VIII IX X
FTNITWF
Wefare Gains (King, 1983) of a WF Reform by welfare decile.Mean CWG = 1724 (000 ITL)
-10000
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Losers -2656 -2773 -3958 -5551 -9668
All 2750 2165 1835 1793 -478
Winners 5732 5540 6531 8459 9776
I IIIII-VIII
IX X
Wefare Gains (King, 1983) of a NIT Reform by welfare decile.Mean CWG = 1643 (000 ITL)
-10000
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Losers -2620 -2762 -3998 -5595 -9719
All 3039 2208 1736 1573 -808
Winners 6082 5634 6526 8408 9726
I IIIII-VIII
IX X
Wefare Gains (King, 1983) of a FT Reform by welfare decile.Mean CWG = 3105 (000 ITL)
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Losers -5528 -5641 -6029 -6607 -8299
All -122 457 2848 6307 7325
Winners 7051 8310 1105 1492 1746
I IIIII-VIII
IX X
Percentage variations of Social Welfare and its components
(Efficiency and Equality)a = 0
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Efficiency 2,1 0,8 1,1
Soc. Wel 2,1 0,8 1,1
Equality 0 0 0
FT NIT WF
Percentage variations of Social Welfare and its components
(Efficiency and Equality)a = 1
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Efficiency 2,1 0,8 1,1
Soc. Wel 1,4 1,3 1,4
Equality -0,69 0,49 0,3
FT NIT WF
Percentage variations of Social Welfare and its components
(Efficiency and Equality)a = 2
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Efficiency 2,1 0,8 1,1
Soc. Wel 0,5 1,9 1,8
Equality -1,57 1,09 0,69
FT NIT WF