Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Differential Impact of Universal Child Benefits on the Labour Supply of Married and Single Mothers

Koebel, Kourtney, Schirle, Tammy·2016·Canadian Public Policy
DOI 10.3138/cpp.2015-049
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examine the effects of the Universal Child Care Benefit on the labour supply of mothers. The benefit has a significant negative effect on the labour supply of legally married mothers, reducing their likelihood of participation in the labour force by 1.4 percentage points and hours worked by nearly one hour per week. In contrast, the likelihood of participation by divorced mothers rises by 2.8 percentage points when receiving the benefit and does not affect hours worked. Moreover, the benefit does not have a statistically significant effect on the participation of common-law married mothers or never-married mothers.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3138/cpp.2015-049

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moffitt R.A., 2002, Handbook of Public Economics, 4, 2393

Cited by

See all 34

Metadata

Authors
Koebel, K., & Schirle, T.
Affiliations
Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario
Venue
Canadian Public Policy
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Published
2016-03
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
49-64
ISSN
  • 0317-0861
  • 1911-9917
DOI
10.3138/cpp.2015-049
Cited by
34
References
35
Language
en

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.