Empirical Economics

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 661–683 | Cite as

Intertemporal labor supply and involuntary unemployment

  • Peter Haan
  • Arne Uhlendorff


We estimate a model of intertemporal male labor supply behavior which explicitly accounts for the effect of income taxation and the transfer system. Moreover, we model the demand-side driven rationing risk that prevents agents from choosing the optimal labor supply state. Our results show that elasticities derived in an unconstrained pure choice model are significantly higher compared to a model with involuntary unemployment. This holds true for short-run and long-run labor supply elasticities.


Intertemporal labor supply behavior Involuntary unemployment Tax and transfer system 

JEL Classification

C23 C25 J22 J64 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aitkin M (1999) A general maximum likelihood analysis of variance components in generalized linear models. Biometrics 55(1): 117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashenfelter O (1980) Unemployment as disequilibirium in a model of aggregate labor supply. Econometrica 48: 547–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargain O, Caliendo M, Haan P, Orsini K (2010) ‘Making work pay’ in a rationed labour market. J Popul Econ 23(1): 323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bingley P, Walker I (1997) The labour supply, unemployment and participation of lone mothers in in-work transfer programmes. Econ J 107: 1375–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blundell R, Walker I (1986) A life-cycle consistent empirical model of family labor supply using cross-sectional data. Rev Econ Stud 53: 539–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blundell R, Ham J, Meghir C (1987) Unemployment and female labour supply. Econ J 97: 44–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blundell R, Duncan A, McCrae J, Meghir C (2000) The labour market impact of the working families tax credit. Fisc Stud 21(1): 75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browning M, Carro JM (2011) Dynamic binary outcome models with maximal unobserved heterogeneity. Working Paper, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, MadridGoogle Scholar
  9. Crepon B, Ferracci M, Jolivet G, van den Berg GJ (2010) Analyzing the anticipation of treatments using data on notification dates. IZA Discussion Paper 5265, BonnGoogle Scholar
  10. Croda E, Kyriazidou E (2005) Intertemporal labor force participation of married women in Germany: a panel data analysis. Discussion Paper, University of Venice, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan A, MacCrae J (1999) Household labour supply, childcare costs and in-work benefits: modelling the impact of the working families tax credit in the UK. Discussion PaperGoogle Scholar
  12. Francesconi M (2002) A joint dynamic model of fertility and work of married women. J Labor Econ 20: 336–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frijters P, van der Klaauw B (2006) Job search with nonparticipation. Econ J 116: 45–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haan P (2010) A multi-state model of state dependence in labor supply: intertemporal labor supply effects of a shift from joint to individual taxation. Labour Econ 17(2): 323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haisken De-New J, Frick J (2005) Desktop compendium to the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). DIW, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman J (1981) Heterogeneity and state dependence. In: Rosen S (ed) Studies in labor markets. Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 91–139Google Scholar
  17. Heckman J (1981) The incidental parameter problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time–discrete data stochastic process. In: Manski C, Mc Fadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 179–195Google Scholar
  18. Heckman J, Willis R (1977) A beta-logistic model for the analysis of sequential labor force participation by married women. J Political Econ 85: 27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan V (2004) The welfare cost of taxation in a labor market with unemployment and non-participation. Labor Econ 11: 395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyslop D (1999) State dependence, serial correlation and heterogeneity in intertemporal labor force participation of married women. Econometrica 67: 1255–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laroque G, Salanie B (2002) Labour market institutions and employment in France. J Appl Econ 7: 25–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee M-J, Tae Y-H (2005) Analysis of labour participation behaviour of Korean women with dynamic probit and conditional logit. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 67(1): 71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michaud P, Tatsiramos K (2011) Employment dynamics of married women in Europe. J Appl Econ 26(4): 641–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michaud P, Vermeulen F (2004) A collective retirement model: identification and estimation in the presence of externalities. IZA Discussion Paper 1294, BonnGoogle Scholar
  25. Prowse V (2005) State dependence in a multi-state model of employment dynamics. IZA Discussion Paper 1623, BonnGoogle Scholar
  26. Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S (2004) Generalized latent variable modeling. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steiner V, Wrohlich K (2004) Household taxation, income splitting and labor supply incentives. A microsimulation study for Germany. CESifo Econ Stud 50: 541–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steiner V, Haan P, Wrohlich K (2005) Dokumentation des Steuer-Transfer-Mikrosimulationsmodells 1999–2002. Data Doc 9Google Scholar
  29. Uhlendorff A (2006) From no pay to low pay and back again? A multi-state model of low pay dynamics. DIW Discussion Paper 648, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. van Soest A (1995) Structural models of family labor supply: a discrete choice approach. J Hum Resour 30: 63–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Soest A, Woittiez I, Kapteyn A (1990) Labor supply, income taxes, and hours restrictions in the Netherlands. J Hum Resour 25(3): 517–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vermeulen F (2002) Collective household models: principles and main results. J Econ Surv 16: 533–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIW Berlin, FU BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.University of Mannheim, DIW BerlinMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations