The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Welfare Reform in European Countries: A Microsimulation Analysis
Abstract
This article compares the effects of increasing traditional welfare to introducing in-work benefits in the 15 (pre-enlargement) countries of the European Union. We use a labour supply model encompassing responses to taxes and transfers along both the intensive and extensive margins, and the EUROMOD microsimulation model to estimate current marginal and participation tax rates. We quantify the equity-efficiency trade-off for a range of elasticity parameters. In most countries, because of large existing welfare programmes with high phase-out rates, increasing traditional welfare is undesirable unless the redistributive tastes of the government are extreme. In contrast, the in-work benefit reform is desirable in a very wide set of cases
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Addressing Child Poverty: How Does the United States Compare With Other Nations?
Smeeding, T., & Thévenot, C. (2016) · Academic Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.011 · Cited by 51
Koebel, K., & Schirle, T. (2016) · Canadian Public Policy · doi:10.3138/cpp.2015-049 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Immervoll, H., Kleven, H. J., Kreiner, C. T., & Saez, E.
- Venue
- The Economic Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-01-01
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 516
- Pages
- 1-44
- ISSN
- 0013-0133 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0297
- OpenAlex
- W2033871359
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 86.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
