Advertisement

Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 254–271 | Cite as

Welfare Sharing Within Households: Identification from Subjective Well-being Data and the Collective Model of Labor Supply

  • Natalia Radchenko
Original Paper

Abstract

The paper proposed a novel approach to identifying intra-household allocations in households with two decision-makers. We addressed the issue by using the collective model of labor supply. Most empirical studies based on the collective approach were restricted to the identification of the sharing rule guiding individual allocations up to a constant. We suggested using individual welfare satisfaction data as an additional source of identification. An empirical example was given using the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey. The sharing rule was found to be related to the spouses’ wage and age differences and number of children. Sharing varied with the level of household income: In low-income households, sharing was equal; in middle (high) income households men held a slight (strong) advantage.

Keywords

Intra-household inequality Collective model of labor supply Sharing rule Subjective well-being data 

References

  1. Alesina, A., Ichino, A., & Karabarbounis, L. (2011). Gender based taxation and the division of family chores. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 1–40. doi: 10.1257/pol.3.2.1.Google Scholar
  2. Apps, P. F., & Rees, R. (1997). Collective labor supply and household production. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 178–190. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2138876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargain, O., & Moreau, N. (2013). The impact of tax-benefit reforms on labor supply in a simulated nash-bargaining framework. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(1), 77–86. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9300-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1831130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1830662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, G. S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bergstrom, T. C. (1997). A survey of theories of the family. In M. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of population and family economics (pp. 21–79). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blundell, R., Chiappori, P. A., Magnac, T., & Meghir, C. (2007). Collective labour supply: Heterogeneity and non-participation. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 417–445. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/4626146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browning, M., Bourguignon, F., Chiappori, P. A., & Lechene, V. (1994). Income and outcomes: A structural model of intrahousehold allocation. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 1067–1096. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2138780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Browning, M., Chiappori, P. A., & Weiss, Y. (2014). Economics of the family. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, Z., & Woolley, F. (2001). A Cournot-Nash model of family decision making. Economic Journal, 111, 722–748. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/798410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cherchye, L., De Rock, B., Sabbe, J., & Vermeulen, F. (2008). Nonparametric tests of collectively rational consumption behavior: an integer programming procedure. Journal of Econometrics, 147, 258–267. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cherchye, L., De Rock, B., Lewbel, A., & Vermeulen, F. (2012). Sharing rule identification for general collective consumption models. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 6571. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp6571.
  14. Chiappori, P. A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56, 63–89. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1911842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiappori, P. A. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 437–467. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2138727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiappori, P. A. (1997). Introducing household production in collective models of labor supply. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 191–209. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2138877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiappori, P. A., & Ekeland, I. (2009). The micro economics of group behavior: Identification. Econometrica, 77(3), 763–799. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40263843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiappori, P. A., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2002). Marriage market, divorce legislation, and household labor supply. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 37–72. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/491589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chiappori, P. A., & Meghir, C. (2014). Intrahousehold inequality. NBER Working paper, No. 20191. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20191.
  20. Clark, A. E. (1996). L’utilité est-elle relative? Analyse à l’aide de données sur les ménages. Economie et Prévision, 121, 151–164. Retrieved from http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ecop_0249-4744_1995_num_121_5_5769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104, 648–659. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2234639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (2002). A simple statistical model for measuring how life events affect happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1139–1144. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.6.1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Couprie, H. (2007). Time allocation within the family: Welfare implications of life in a couple. Economic Journal, 117, 287–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02012.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 94–122. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donni, O. (2008). Labor supply, home production, and welfare comparisons. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1720–1737. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Donni, O., & Matteazzi, E. (2012). On the importance of domestic production in collective models: Evidence from US data. Annales d’economie et statistiques, 105–106, 99–126. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/23646458.Google Scholar
  28. Elsas, S. (2013). Pooling and sharing income within households: A satisfaction approach. SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, 587, DIW Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=428100.
  29. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Van Praag, B. M. S. (2001). Poverty in the Russian federation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(2), 147–172. doi: 10.1023/A:1011560530411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02238520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerrans, P., Speelman, C., & Campitelli, G. (2014). The relationship between personal financial wellness and financial wellbeing: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35(2), 145–160. doi: 10.1007/s10834-013-9358-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenstein, T. N. (2009). National context, family satisfaction, and fairness in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1039–1051. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00651.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1984). A theory of allocation of time in markets for labour and marriage. The Economic Journal, 94, 863–882. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2232300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horner, E. (2014). Continued pursuit of happily ever after: Low barriers to divorce and happiness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35, 228–240. doi: 10.1007/s10834-013-9366-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 375–405. doi: 10.1257/089533006776526030.Google Scholar
  36. Kalugina, E., Radtchenko, N., & Sofer, C. (2009). How do spouses share their full income? Identification of the sharing rule using self-reported income. Review of Income and Wealth, 55, 360–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00323.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalugina, E., Radtchenko, N., & Sofer, C. (2009b). Intrahousehold Inequality in Transitional Russia. Review of Economics of the Household, 7, 447–471. doi: 10.1007/s11150-009-9061-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kalugina, E., Radtchenko, N., & Sofer, C. (2007). Une analyse du partage intrafamilial du revenu à partir de données subjectives. Economie et Prévision, 186(5), 101–116. Retrieved from http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ecop_0249-4744_2008_num_186_5_7855.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, J. (2012). The effects of welfare-to-work programs on welfare recipients employment outcomes. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33, 130–142. doi: 10.1007/s10834-011-9272-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lacroix, G., & Radtchenko, N. (2011). The changing intra-household resource allocation in Russia. Journal of Population Economics, 24, 85–106. doi: 10.1007/s00148-009-0275-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lise, J., & Seitz, S. (2011). Consumption inequality and intrahousehold allocations. The Review of Economic Studies, 78, 328–355. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdq003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1994). Non-cooperative bargaining models of marriage. American Economic Review, 84, 132–137. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2117816.Google Scholar
  43. Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision theory—A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21, 21–34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2526238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mangiavacchi, L., & Rapallini, C. (2014). Self-reported economic condition and home production: Intra-household allocation in Italy. Bulletin of Economic Research, 66, 279–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8586.2012.00446.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McBride, M. (2001). Relative-income effects on subjective well-being in the cross-section. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45, 251–278. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00145-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McElroy, M., & Horney, M. (1981). Nash-bargained decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22, 333–349. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2526280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Michaud, P.-C., & Vermeulen, F. (2011). A collective labor supply model with complementaries in leisure: Identification and estimation by means of panel data. Labour Economics, 18(2), 159–167. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2010.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oshio, T., Nozaki, K., & Kobayashi, M. (2013). Division of household labor and marital satisfaction in China, Japan, and Korea. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(2), 112–223. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9321-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Phipps, Sh, Burton, P., & Osberg, L. (2001). Time as a source of inequality within mkarriage: Are husbands more satisfied with time for themselves than wives? Feminist Economics, 7(2), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/1354700110068261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prawitz, A. D., Kalkowski, J. C., & Cohart, J. (2013). Responses to economic pressure by low-income families: Financial distress and hopefulness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(1), 29–40. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9288-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rapoport, B., Sofer, C., & Solaz, A. (2011). Household production in a collective model: Some new results. Journal of Population Economics, 24, 23–45. doi: 10.1007/s00148-010-0308-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2000). Who wants to redistribute? The tunnel effect in 1990s Russia. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 87–104. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00064-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2001). Identifying welfare effects from subjective questions. Economica, 68, 335–357. doi: 10.1111/1468-0335.00250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2002). Self-rated economic welfare in Russia. European Economic Review, 46, 1453–1473. doi: 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00151-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sayer, L. C., & Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Women’s economic independence and the probability of divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 906–943. doi: 10.1177/019251300021007005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Senik, C. (2005). What can we learn from subjective data? The case of income and well-being. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(1), 43–63. doi: 10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00238.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Praag, B. M. S. (2007). Perspectives from the happiness literature and the role of new instruments for policy analysis. CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, 53(1), 42–68. doi: 10.1093/cesifo/ifm002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Praag, B. M. S., & Baarsma, B. E. (2005). Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: The case of airport noise. Economic Journal, 115, 224–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00967.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Praag, B. M. S., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51(1), 29–49. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00140-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winkelmann, L., & Winkelmann, R. (1998). Why are the unemployed so unhappy? Evidence from panel data. Economica, 65, 1–15. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2555127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations