X hits on this document

PDF document

BRUCE D. MEYER AND DAN T. ROSENBAUM - page 38 / 52

116 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

38 / 52

1100

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS

on parental care is likely to be largest on these families with young children who are not likely to be in school. The last speci-

  • cation of Table V examines whether women learn about tax

changes with a delay after they are implemented. This specica- tion includes both the contemporaneous and one year lagged tax variables. The results are somewhat supportive of a lagged effect of taxes. In the ORG data the contemporaneous tax variable is small and insignicant, while the lagged variable is large and signicant. In the March CPS, it is the contemporaneous variable that is large and signicant, while the lagged variable is smaller and signicant, although still substantial in size.

I. Additional Specications and Hours Worked

We examine several other specications that are not reported here in order to determine the benets of studying many pro- grams at the same time, to check the sensitivity of our results to alternative specications, and to see whether there are particu- larly large effects for certain subgroups of the population. We nd that ignoring some of the policy changes that we study has a substantial effect on the estimates for the remaining programs. When we include the tax variable, but leave out the other policy variables, its coefcient is about 50 percent larger in both sam- ples. When the only policy variables that we include are Medicaid if Work and the Welfare Maximum Benet, the Medicaid coef- cient is positive and signicant in the March CPS sample. When the other policy variables are not included, the waiver variables are much larger. On the other hand, the tax coefcient is hardly changed when the training and child care variables are excluded. These results suggest that the common research strategy of in- vestigating one program in isolation has the potential to give misleading results.

We have examined the sensitivity of our results to alterna- tive samples and variable denitions. In particular, the results are little changed by using more stringent denitions of employ- ment, by including separated women or women in school. We also try several subgroup analyses. In particular, we examine differ- ences between whites and nonwhites, and family heads and sub- family heads. Nonwhites appear to be more affected by welfare waivers than whites, while subfamily heads are more sensitive to taxes than family heads.

To obtain a broader picture of the effects of welfare and tax policy on labor supply, we also examined hours worked (see

Document info
Document views116
Page views116
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 10:36:22 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs1219
Words20084

Comments