Empirical Economics

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 847–875

The take-up of means-tested income support



Many studies have identified that eligible claimants do not participate in means-tested income support programs. We examine the determinants of the decision to take-up social assistance in Canada using the 1997 Canadian Out of Employment Panel dataset. Using a conditional maximum likelihood approach to take account of the potential endogeneity of the level of benefits available to potential claimants, we find that benefit levels and recent receipt of Social Assistance (SA) are important determinants of the take-up decision. The results are important for the fiscal implications of changing benefit levels as the take-up rate is systematically related to the benefits potential recipients are entitled to receive. Further, it suggests that stigma and transaction costs associated with program use are important in explaining the take-up decision.


Means-tested Welfare Take-up 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen DW (1993) Welfare and the family: the Canadian experience. J Labor Econ 11: 201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade C (2002) The economics of welfare participation and welfare stigma: a review. Public Finan Manage 2: 294–333Google Scholar
  3. Barrett GF, Cragg MI (1998) An untold story: the characteristics of welfare use in British Columbia. Can J Econ 31: 165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett G, Doiron D, Green D, Riddell C (1996) The interaction of unemployment insurance and social assistance. Human Resources Development Corporation, Evaluation Brief #18, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitler MP, Currie J, Scholz J (2003) WIC eligibility and participation. J Hum Resour 38: 1039–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blank R, Card D (1991) Recent trends in insured and uninsured unemployment: is there an explanation?. Q J Econ 106: 1157–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blank R, Ruggles P (1996) When do women use aid to families with dependent children and food stamps? The dynamics of eligibility versus participation. J Hum Resour 31: 57–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blundell R, Fry V, Walker I (1988) Modeling the take-up of means tested benefits: the case of housing benefits in the United Kingdom. Econ J 98: 58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browning M, Jones R, Kuhn P (1995) Studies of the interaction of UI and welfare using the COEP dataset. Human Resources Development Canada, Evaluation Brief #3, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruce R, Bailey N, Warburton WP, Cragg JG, Nakamura A (1996) Those returning to income assistance. Can J Econ 29: S33–S38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charette MF, Meng R (1994) The determinants of welfare participation for female heads of household in Canada. Can J Econ 27: 290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christofides LN (2000) Social assistance and labour supply. Can J Econ 33: 715–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christofides LN, Stengos T, Swidinsky R (1997) Welfare participation and labour market behaviour in Canada. Can J Econ 30: 595–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark C (1998) Canada’s income security programs. Canadian Council on Social Development, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  15. Currie J (2004) The take- up of social benefits. NBER working paper, 10488Google Scholar
  16. Dooley MD (1999) The evolution of welfare participation among Canadian lone mothers, 1973–1991. Can J Econ 32: 589–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorsett R, Heady C (1991) The take-up of means-tested benefits by working families with children. Fiscal Stud 12: 22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Employment Insurance Act (1996)Google Scholar
  19. Evans WN, Oates WE, Schwab RM (1992) Measuring peer group effects: a study of teenage behaviour. J Political Econ 100: 966–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene WH (1993) Econometric analysis. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Grey A (2002) Employment insurance and social assistance: evidence on program interaction, Final Report: Human Resources Development Canada, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Haider SJ, Jacknowitz A, Schoeni RF (2003) Food stamps and the elderly—why is participation so low?. J Hum Resour 38: 1080–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hernanz V, Malherbet F, Pellizzari M (2004) Take-up of welfare benefits in OECD countries: a review of the evidence. OECD Social, Employment and Immigration Working Papers no. 17Google Scholar
  24. Hoynes H (1996) Welfare transfers in two-parent families: labor supply and welfare participation under AFDC-UP. Econometrica 64: 295–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) (2001) Did the social assistance take-up rate change after EI reform for job separators? Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), OttawaGoogle Scholar
  26. Kayser H, Frick JR (2001) Take it or leave it: (non-)take-up behavior of social assistance in Germany. J Appl Soc Sci Stud 121: 27–58Google Scholar
  27. McGarry K (1996) Factors determining participation of the elderly in supplemental security income. J Hum Resour 31: 331–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moffitt R (1983) An economic model of welfare stigma. Am Econ Rev 73: 1023–1035Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Welfare (1996) Welfare incomes 1995. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  30. National Council of Welfare (1997a) Another look at welfare reform. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  31. National Council of Welfare (1997) Welfare incomes 1996. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  32. National Council of Welfare (1999) Welfare incomes 1997 and 1998. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  33. National Council of Welfare (2000a) Welfare incomes 1997 and 1998, a report by the National Council of Welfare. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  34. National Council of Welfare (2000b) Welfare incomes 1999. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  35. Pudney S, Hernandez M, Hancock R (2002) The welfare cost of means-testing: pensioner participation in income support. Discussion Papers in Economics 03/2: Department of Economics, University of LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  36. Riphahn R (2001) Rational poverty or poor rationality? The take-up of social assistance benefits. Rev Income Wealth 47: 379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sargent T (1998) The BU ratio: prospect and retrospect, Working Paper 98–09: Department of Finance, October, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  38. Social Development Canada (1994) Social Assistance in Canada-1994. http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/reports/1996-000047/page09.shtml. accessed on 23 June, 2005
  39. Storer P, Van Audenrode MA (1995) Unemployment insurance take-up rates in Canada: facts, determinants and implications. Can J Econ 28: 822–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Department for Health and Human Services (2005) Indicators of Welfare Dependence. Annual Report to CongressGoogle Scholar
  41. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, MA, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Discipline of EconomicsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations