The Journal of Economic Inequality

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 77–106 | Cite as

Microsimulation as a tool for evaluating redistribution policies

  • François Bourguignon
  • Amedeo SpadaroEmail author


During the last 20 years, microsimulation models have been increasingly applied in qualitative and quantitative analysis of public policies. This paper discusses microsimulation techniques and their theoretical background as a tool for the analysis of public policies. It next analyses basic principles for using microsimulation models and interpreting their results, with emphasis on tax incidence, redistribution and poverty analysis. It then discusses social welfare analysis permitted by microsimulation techniques and points to the limits of present approaches and some directions for future developments.

Key words

evaluation of public policies inequality microsimulation poverty redistribution 

JEL Classification Codes

C81 D31 H21 H23 H31 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aaberge, R., Colombino, U. and Strøm, S.: Social Evaluation of Individual Welfare Effecys from Income Taxation, Discussion Paper 230 Statistics Norway, Oslo, Norway, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaberge, R., Colombino, U. and Strøm, S.: Evaluating alternative tax reforms in Italy with a model of joint labour supply of married couples, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9 (1998) 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aaberge, R., Colombino, U. and Strøm, S.: Labour supply in Italy: An empirical analysis of joint household decisions, with taxes and quantity constraints, Journal of Applied Econometrics 14(4) (1999) 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aaberge, R., Colombino, U. and Strøm, S.: Labour supply responses and welfare effects from replacing current tax rules by a flat tax: Empirical evidence from Italy, Norway and Sweden, Journal of Population Economics 13(4) (2000) 595–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aaberge, R., Colombino, U. and Strøm, S.: Do More Equal Slices Shrink the Cake? An Empirical Evaluation of Tax-Transfer Reform Proposals in Italy, WP CHILD #19/2001. 37/2003, University of Oslo, Department of Economics, Oslo, Norway, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aaberge, R., Colombino, U., Holmøy, E., Strøm, B. and Wennemo, T.: Population Aging and Fiscal Sustainability: An Integrated Micro–macro Analysis of Required Tax Changes, Discussion Paper 366, Statistics Norway, Oslo, Norway, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmad, E. and Stern, N.: The theory of reform and Indian direct taxes, Journal of Public Economics 25 (1984) 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, A., Bourguignon, F. and Chiappori, P.A.: What do we learn about tax reforms from international comparisons? France and Britain, European Economic Review 32(2–3) (1988) 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atkinson, A., Bourguignon, F., O'Donoghue, C., Sutherland, H. and Utili, F.: Microsimulation of social policy in the European Union: Case study of a European minimum pension, Economica 69(274) (2002) 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atkinson, A. and Sutherland, H. (eds.), Tax Benefit Models. STICERD Occasional Paper 10, LSE. Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atkinson, A. and Stiglitz, J.: Lectures on Public Economics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Attanasio, O., Meghir, C. and Székely, M.: Using Randomized Experiments and Structural Models for ‘Scaling Up’: Evidence from the PROGRESA Evaluation, World Bank. Paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, May 21–23, Bangalore, India, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bargain, O.: On Modelling Household Labor Supply with Taxation, Département et Laboratoire d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée (DELTA), Paris, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bargain, O.: Aide au retour à l'emploi et à l'activité des femmes en couple, Revue de l'OFCE 88 (2004) 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D.: Money metric utility: A harmless normalisation? Journal of Economic Theory 46 (1988) 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blundell, R., Duncan, A., McCrae, J. and Meghir, C.: The labour market impact of the working families' tax credit, Fiscal Studies 21(1) (2000) 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blundell, R. and MaCurdy, T.: Labour Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches, In: O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (eds.), Handbook of Labour Economics, Vol. 3a, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonin, H., Kempe, W. and Schneider, H.: Household Labour Supply Effects of Low-wages Subsidies in Germany, IZA Discussion Paper 637, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bourguignon, F., Chiappori, P.A. and Hugounenq, R.: Exploring the Distribution and Incentive Effects of Tax Harmonization, In: A. Heimler and D. Meulders, (eds.), Empirical Approaches to Fiscal Policy Modelling, Chapman and Hall, London, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F. and Leite, P.: Conditional cash transfers, schooling and child labour: Micro-simulating bolsa escola, World Bank Economic Review 17(2) (2003) 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bourguignon, F., O'Donoghue, C., Sastre, J., Spadaro, A. and Utili, F.: Eur3: A prototype European tax-benefits model, In: A. Gupta and V. Kapur (eds.), Microsimulation in Government Policy and Forecasting, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bourguignon, F., Robillard, A.S. and Robinson, S.: Representative versus real households in the macroeconomic modelling of inequality, In: T.J. Kehoe, T.N. Srinivasan and J. Whalley (eds.), Frontiers in Applied General Equilibrium Modelling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bourguignon, F. and Spadaro, A.: Social Preferences Revealed through Effective Marginal Tax Rates, DELTA Working Paper 2000-29, Département et Laboratoire d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée (DELTA), Paris, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bourguignon, F. and Spadaro, A.: Tax-Benefit Revealed Social Preferences: Are Tax Authorities Non-Paretian? Département et Laboratoire d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée (DELTA), Paris, 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bradley, E. and Tibshirani, J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Browning, M., Hansen, L.P. and Heckman, J.: Micro data and general equilibrium models, In: Taylor and Woodford (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bussolo, M. and Lay, J.: Globalisation and Poverty Changes: A Case Study on Colombia, Working Paper 226, OECD Development Centre, Paris, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Caldwell, S.B.: Static, Dynamic and Mixed Microsimulation, Department of Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Callan, T. and Sutherland, H.: The impact of comparable policies in European countries: Microsimulation approaches, European Economic Review 41(3–5) (1997) 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen, S. and Ravallion, M.: Households Welfare Impacts of China's accession to the World Trade Organization, Working Paper 3040, World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2003.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Christiansen, V. and Jansen, E.: Implicit social preferences in the Norwegian system of indirect taxation, Journal of Public Economics 10 (1978) 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Citro, C. and Hanushek, E.: Improving Information for Social Policy Decision – The Uses of Microsimulation Modelling, National Academy, Washington, D.C., 1991.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cogneau, D. and Robilliard, A.S.: Croissance, distribution et pauvreté: un modèle de micro simulation en équilibre général appliqué à Madagascar, Working Paper DT2001/19, Développement, Institutions and Analyses de Long terme, Paris, 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Creedy, J.: Modelling Indirect Taxes and Tax Reform, Edward Elgar, Northampton, Mass, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Creedy, J. and Duncan, A.: Behavioural microsimulation with labour supply responses, Journal of Economic Surveys 16(1) (2002) 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Creedy, J., Kalb, G. and Kew, H.: Confidence Intervals for Policy Reforms in Behavioural Tax Microsimulation Modelling, Research Paper 936, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 2005.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Das, M. and van Soest, A.: Family Labour Supply and Proposed Tax Reforms in The Netherlands, De Economist 149 (2001) 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    De Lathouwer, L.: A Case Study of Unemployment Scheme for Belgium and The Netherlands, In: Harding (ed.), Microsimulation and Public Policy, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Decoster, A. and Van Camp, G.: Redistributive effects of the shift from personal income taxes to indirect taxes: Belgium 1988–93, Fiscal Studies 22(1) (2001) 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Demery, L.: Analysing the Incidence of Public Spending, In: F. Bourguignon and L.A. Pereira da Silva (eds.), The Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution: Evaluation Techniques and Tools, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Diamond, P. and Mirrlees, J.: Optimal taxation and public production: I – Production efficiency, American Economic Review 61(1) (1971) 8–27.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Diamond, P. and Mirrlees, J.: Optimal taxation and public production: II – Production efficiency, American Economic Review 61(3) (1971) 261–278.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Duclos, J.-Y.: Modelling the take-up of state support, Journal of Public Economics 58(3) (1995) 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Duclos, J.-Y.: On equity aspects of imperfect poverty relief, Review of Income and Wealth 41(2) (1995) 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Duclos, J.-Y.: Estimating and testing a model of welfare participation: The case of supplementary benefits in Britain, Economica 64(253) (1997) 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Duclos, J.-Y., Makdissi, P. and Wodon, Q.: Poverty-Dominant Programs Reforms: the role of Targeting and Allocation Rules, Journal of Development Economics 77(1) (2005) 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Duflo, E.: Scaling Up and Evaluation, Paper Presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, May 21–23, Bangalore, India, 2003.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Duncan, A. and Weeks, M.: Transitions estimators in discrete labour supply models, In: L. Mitton, H. Sutherland and M. Weeks (eds.), Microsimulation Modelling for Policy Analysis: Challenges and Innovations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dupont, G., Hagneré, C. and Touzé, V.: Les modèles de microsimulation dynamique dans l'analyse des réformes des systèmes de retraites: une tentative de bilan, Economie et Prévision 160–161(4–5) (2004) 167–192.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gago, A., Labandeira, X. and Rodriguez, M.: International Empirical Evidence on Green Tax Reforms, Universidad de Vigo, Department of Applied Economics, 2004.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gertler, P. and Glewwe, P.: The willingness to pay for education in developing countries: Evidence from rural Peru, Journal of Public Economics 42(3) (1990) 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Giné, X. and Townsend, R.: Evaluation of Financial Liberalization: A General Equilibrium Model with Constrained Occupation Choice, University of Chicago, Department of Economics, Chicago, Ill., 2004.
  53. 53.
    Gortz, M., Konnerup, M. and Kastberg-Nielsen, C.: Butikkernes åbningstider: Hvad betyder de for forbrugerne? (Shops Opening Hours: Consequences for Consumers), In: S.E. Hougaard Jensen (ed.), Økonomi og erhvervspolitik (Economics and Business Politics), Handelshøjskolens Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Grubb, M., Edmonds, J., ten Brink, P. and Morrison, M.: The costs of limiting fossil-fuel CO2 emissions, Annual Review of Energy and Environment 18 (1993) 397–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gupta, A. and Kapur, V.: Microsimulation in Government Policy and Forecasting, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hancock, R., Pudney, S. and Sutherland, H.: Using Econometric Models of Benefit Take-up by British Pensioners in Microsimulation Models, Paper presented at the International Microsimulation Conference on Population, Ageing and Health: Modelling Our Future, December 7–12, Canberra, Australia, 2003.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Harding, A.: Lifetime Income Distribution and Redistribution: Applications of a Microsimulation Model, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harding, A.: Microsimulation and Public Policy, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hausman, J.: The effect of wages, taxes and fixed costs on women's labour force participation, Journal of Public Economics 14 (1980) 161–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hausman, J.: Labour supply, In: H. Aaron and J. Pechman (eds.), How Taxes Affect Economic Behavior, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1981.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hausman, J.: The econometrics of nonlinear budget set, Econometrica 53 (1985) 1255–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hausman, J. and Ruud, P.: Family labour supply with taxes, American Economic Review 74 (1994) 242–248.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Heckman, J., Lochner, L. and Taber, C.: Explaining rising wage inequality: Explorations with a dynamic general equilibrium model of labor earnings with heterogeneous agents, Review of Economics Dynamics 1 (1998) 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Heckman, J. and Sedlacek, G.: Self-selection and the distribution of hourly wages, Journal of Labor Economics 8(1) (1990) 329–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hertel, T. and Reimer, J.: Predicting the Poverty Impacts of Trade Reform, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3444, Washington, D.C., 2004.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hoerner, A. and Bosquet, B.: Environmental Tax Reform: The European Experience, Center for a Sustainable Economy, Washington, D.C., 2001.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoynes, H.: Welfare transfers in two parent families: Labour supply and welfare participation under AFDC-UP, Econometrica 64 (1996) 295–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Judd, K., Kubler, F. and Schmedders, K.: Computational methods for dynamic equilibria with heterogeneous agents, In: M. Dewatripont, L.P. Hansen and S. Turnovsky (eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaplanoglou, G. and Newbery, D.M.: Indirect taxation in Greece: Evaluation and possible reform, International Tax and Public Finance 10 (2003) 511–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Keane, M. and Moffit, R.: A structural model of multiple welfare program participation and labour supply, International Economic Review 39 (1998) 553–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    King, M.A.: Welfare analysis of tax reforms using households data, Journal of Public Economics 21 (1983) 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Klevmarken, N.A.: Modelling Behavioural Response in EUROMOD, Microsimulation Unit Working Paper MU9702, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kurz, M.: On the inverse optimal problem, In: H.W. Kuhn and G.P. Szego, (eds.), Mathematical Systems Theory and Economics, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Labandeira, X., Labeaga, J.M. and Rodriguez, M.: A macro and microeconomic integrated approach to assess the effects of public policies, Universidad de Vigo, Department of Applied Economics, 2004.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Labeaga, J.M., Oliver, X. and Spadaro, A.: Discrete Choice Models of Labour Supply, Behavioural Microsimulation and the Spanish Tax Reforms, FEDEA Working Paper,, 2005.
  76. 76.
    Lambert, P.: The Distribution and Redistribution of Income: A Mathematical Analysis, Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, 1993.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Liberati, P.: The distributional effects of indirect tax changes in Italy, International Tax and Public Finance 8(1) (2001) 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    MaCurdy, T.E., Green, D. and Paarsch, H.: Assessing empirical approaches for analysing taxes and labour supply, Journal of Human Resources 25(3) (1990) 415–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Madden, D.: An analysis of indirect tax reform in Ireland in the 1980s, Fiscal Studies 16 (1995) 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Meagher, G.A.: Forecasting Changes in Income Distribution: An Applied General Equilibrium Approach, Centre of Policy Studies and the IMPACT Project Working Paper OP-78, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 1993.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Merz, J.: Microsimulation – A survey of principles, developments and applications, International Journal of Forecasting 7 (1991) 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mirrlees, J.A.: An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation, Review of Economic Studies 38(114) (1971) 175–208.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Newbery, D.M.G.: The distributional impact of price changes in Hungary and in the United Kingdom, Economic Journal 105 (1995) 847–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    O'Donoghue, C.: Dynamic microsimulation: A methodological survey, Brazilian Electronic Economic Journal 4(2) (1999).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Oliver, X. and Spadaro, A.: Are Spanish Governments Really Averse to Inequality? An Empirically-Based Normative Analysis of the 1998 and 1999 Spanish Tax-Benefit Systems, Investigaciones Economicas 28(3) (2004)551–66.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Orcutt, G.: A new type of socio-economic system, Review of Economic and Statistics 58 (1957) 773–797.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Orcutt, G, Greenberger, M., Korbel, J. and Rivlin, A.: Microanalysis of Socio-Economic Systems: A Simulation Study, Harper and Row, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Orcutt, G., Merz, J. and Quinke, H.: Microanalytic Simulation Models to Support Social and Financial Policy, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pudney, S. and Sutherland, H.: How reliable are microsimulation results? An analysis of the role of sampling error in a UK tax-benefit model, Journal of Public Economics 53(3) (1994) 327–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ramsey, F.: A contribution to the theory of taxation, Economic Journal 37 (1927) 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Redmond, G., Sutherland, H. and Wilson, M.: The Arithmetic of Tax and Social Security Reform: A User's Guide to Microsimulation Methods and Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rutherford, T., Shepotylo, O. and Tarr, D.: Household and Poverty Effects from Russia's Accession to the WTO, World Bank, Presented at the 7th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, June 17–19, Washington, D.C., 2004.
  93. 93.
    Sahn, D. and Younger, S.: Estimating the incidence of indirect taxes in developing countries, In: F. Bourguignon and Pereira da Silva L.A. (eds.), The Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution: Evaluation Techniques and Tools, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Savard, L.: Poverty and Income Distribution in a CGE-Household Microsimulation Model: Top-Down/Bottom-Up Approach, CIRPÉE Working Paper 03-43. Centre interuniversitaire sur le risque, les politiques économiques et l'emploi, Quebec, 2003.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Shoven, J.B. and Whalley, J.: Applied general equilibrium models of taxation and international trade: An introduction and survey, Journal of Economic Literature 22(3) (1984) 1007–1051.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Slemrod, J., Yitzhaki, S. and Mayshar, J.: The optimal two-bracket linear income tax, Journal of Public Economics 53(2) (1994) 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Spadaro, A.: Microsimulation and normative policy evaluation: An application to some EU tax-benefits system, Journal of Public Economic Theory 7(4) 2005.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Stern, N.: On the Specification of Models of Optimum Income Taxation, Journal of Public Economics 6 (1976) 123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Sutherland, H.: Les modèles statiques de microsimulation en Europe dans les années 90, Economie et Statistique 315 (1998) 35–50.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Sutherland, H.: Final Report EUROMOD: An Integrated European Benefit-Tax Model, EUROMOD Working Paper EM9/01, University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge, 2001.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Symons, E. and Warren, N.: Modelling consumer behaviour response to commodity tax reforms in microsimulation models, In: A. Harding (ed.), Microsimulation and Public Policy, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Todd, P. and Wolpin, K.: Using Experimental Data to Validate a Dynamic Behavioral Model of Child Schooling and Fertility: Assessing the Impact of a School Subsidy Program in Mexico, University of Pennsylvania, Population Studies Center, Philadelphia, 2002.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Townsend, R.: Safety Nets and Financial Institutions in the Asian Crisis: the Allocation of Within-Country Risk, International Monetary Fund. Prepared for the IMF Conference on Macroeconomic Policies and Poverty Reduction, March 14–15, Washington, D.C., 2002.
  104. 104.
    Townsend, R. and Ueda, K.: Financial Deepening, Inequality, and Growth: A Model-Based Quantitative Evaluation, IMF Working Paper 03-193, International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., 2003.
  105. 105.
    Tsakloglou, P. and Mitrakos, T.: On the distributional impact of excise duties: Evidence from Greece, Public Finance/Finances Publiques 53 (1998) 78–101.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Tuomala, M.: Optimal Income Tax and Redistribution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    van Soest, A.: A structural model of family labour supply: A discrete choice approach, Journal of Human Resources 30 (1995) 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Younger, S.: Benefits on the margin: Observation on the average vs. marginal benefit incidence, World Bank Economic Review 17(1) (2003) 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Zaidi, A. and Rake, K.: Dynamic microsimulation models: A review and some lessons for SAGE, SAGE Discussion Paper 2, ESRC SAGE Research Group, London School of Economics, London, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The World Bank and PSE -Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques- (Joint research unit 8545 CNRS -EHESS-ENPC-ENS)ParisFrance
  2. 2.PSE -Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques- (Joint research unit 8545 CNRS -EHESS-ENPC-ENS)ParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversitat de les Illes BalearsPalma de MallorcaSpain

Personalised recommendations