, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 165–178 | Cite as

Workfare in an efficiency wage model

  • Volker Meier
Original Paper


The impacts of introducing work requirements for welfare recipients are studied in an efficiency wage model. If the workfare package is not mandatory, it will reduce employment, profits, and utility levels of employed and unemployed workers. In contrast, mandatory effort requirements will generally raise both employment and profits and reduce the tax rate. The impact on the net wage is ambiguous. Changes of utility levels of employed and unemployed workers have the same sign as the variation in the net wage. The possibility of a Pareto improvement may explain the widespread support for welfare to work experiments.


Workfare Welfare Efficiency wages 

JEL Classification

H53 J41 J60 



I would like to thank Sascha Becker and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Besley TJ, Coate S (1992) Workfare versus welfare: incentive arguments for work requirements in poverty-alleviation programs. Am Econ Rev 82:249–261Google Scholar
  2. Besley TJ, Coate S (1995) The design of income maintenance programmes. Rev Econ Stud 62:187–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1988) Cash versus kind, self-selection and efficient transfers. Am Econ Rev 78:691–700Google Scholar
  4. Blank RM (2002) Evaluating welfare reform in the United States. J Econ Lit 40:1105–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brett C (1998) Who should be on workfare? The use of work requirements as part of an optimal tax mix. Oxford Econ Pap 50:607–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers RG (1989) Workfare or welfare? J Public Econ 40:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coate S (1995) Altruism, the Samaritan’s dilemma, and government transfer policy. Am Econ Rev 85:46–57Google Scholar
  8. Cuff K (2000) Optimality of workfare with heterogeneous preferences. Can J Econ 33:149–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dye RA, Antle R (1986) Cost-minimizing welfare programs. J Public Econ 30:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellwood DT (2000) Anti-poverty policy for families in the next century: from welfare to work—and worries. J Econ Perspect14:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fredriksson P, Holmlund B (2006) Optimal unemployment insurance design: time limits, monitoring, or workfare? Int Tax Public Finan 13:565–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haveman R, Wolfe B (2000) Welfare to work in the U.S.: a model for other developed nations? Int Tax Public Finan 7:95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hotz VJ, Mullin CH, Scholz JK (2002) Welfare, employment and income: evidence on the effects of benefit reduction from California. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 92:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moffitt RA (1999) Explaining welfare reform: public choice and the labor market. Int Tax Public Finan 6:289–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moffitt RA (2002) The temporary assistance for needy families program. NBER Working Paper No. 8749, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Peck J, Theodore N (2000) ‘Work first’: workfare and the regulation of contingent labor markets. Cambridge J Econ 24:119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rose NE (2001) Public employment programs, workfare, and welfare reform. Rev Radic Polit Econ 33:281–286Google Scholar
  18. Schöb R (2003) Workfare and trade unions: labour market repercussions of welfare reform. CESifo Working Paper No. 942, MunichGoogle Scholar
  19. Shapiro C, Stiglitz JE (1984) Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. Am Econ Rev 74:433–444Google Scholar
  20. Solow RM (1998) Work and welfare. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Thustrup Kreiner C, Tranæs T (2005) Optimal workfare with voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Scand J Econ 107:459–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ifo Institute for Economic ResearchMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations