SOCIAL TRANSFERS AS A DETERMINANT OF INTRAHOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION: THE CASE OF CHILE

Cuesta, Jose (2004): SOCIAL TRANSFERS AS A DETERMINANT OF INTRAHOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION: THE CASE OF CHILE. Published in: Journal of Income Distribution , Vol. 12, No. 1/2 (2004): pp. 76-104.

Abstract

The effects of social transfers on individual participation and working hours are theoretically shown to differ for unitary and bargaining intrahousehold allocation models. This result is attributed to both the non-transferability of in-kind social transfers and differences in control of these transfers among household members. Using elasticities of social transfers on work effort (estimated through sample selection corrected participation probits and working hour OLS), new tests on intrahousehold allocation are developed for Chile. These tests strongly reject the unitary model and exogenous bargaining, accepting endogenous bargaining only among non-poor households. Poor households may use social incomes as investments for the future rather than for short-term strategic power relations.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Social Transfers, Intrahousehold Allocation Rules, Labor Supply, Chile
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics > D13 - Household Production and Intrahousehold Allocation; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor > J22 - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

References

Ashenfelter, O., and J.J. Heckman. 1974. The estimation of incomes and substitution effects in a model of family labour supply. Econometrica 42, 73--85.

Blumberg, R.L. 1988. Income under female versus male control: hypothesis from a theory of gender stratification and data from the Third World. Journal of Family Issues 9, 51--84.

Browning, M., F. Bourguignon, P.A. Chiappori and V. Lechéne. 1994. Income and outcomes: a structural model of intrahousehold allocation. Journal of Political Economy 102, 1067--96.

Casique, M. 2000. Mexican married women’s autonomy and power within the household. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association, Rio de Janeiro, January 2000.

Chiappori, P.A. 1997. “Collective” models of household behaviour: the sharing rule approach, in Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J., Alderman, H (Eds.) Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods and Policy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Floro, M.S. 1995. Economic restructuring, gender and the allocation of time. World Development 23, 1913--29.

Garfinkel, I., P.K. Robbins, J.B. Shoven, and D.R. Meyer. 1990. The Wisconsin Child Support Assurance system: estimated effects on poverty, labour supply, caseloads and costs. Journal of Human Resources 25, 1--31.

Hausman, J.A. 1985. The Econometrics of Nonlinear Budget Sets. Econometrica 53 (6): 1255-82.

Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47, 153--62.

INTEGRA. 1998. Informe sobre el Presupuesto y Costo Día Niño. Santiago de Chile: Fundación INTEGRA.

Jejeebhoy, S. J. 1995. Women’s Education, Autonomy, Reproductive Behaviour: Experience from Developing Countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Junta Nacional de Ayuda Escolar y Becas (JUNAEB).1998. Programas Asistenciales 1997/1998. Santiago de Chile: JUNAEB.

Junta Nacional de Jardines Infantiles (JUNJI). 1998. Programas 1998. Santiago de Chile: JUNJI.

Juster, F.T. and F.P. Sttaford. 1991. The allocation of time: empirical findings, behavioural models and problems of measurement. Journal of Economic Literature 29, 471--522.

Killingsworth, M. 1983. Labour Supply. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Killingsworth, M. and J. J. Heckman. 1986. Female labour supply: a survey, in Ashenfelter, O. and R. Layard (Eds.) Handbook of Labour Economics, vol. 1, New York: North-Holland, pp. 103--204.

Leuthold, J. 1968. An empirical analysis of the formula resource transfers and the work decision of the poor. Journal of Economic Resources 3, 312-23.

Licona, G. 1997. Oferta labour al familiar y desempleo en México. Los efectos de la pobreza. El Trimestre Económico 64, 531--68.

Millán I, D. Contreras and D. Bravo. 1999. Impacto distributivo del gasto social sobre la distribución de ingresos en Chile. Master’s Thesis. Universidad de Chile.

Ministerio de Desarrollo y Planificación (MIDEPLAN). 2000. Indicadores Económicos y Sociales 1990-1998.Evolución de la Pobreza e Indigencia. Santiago de Chile: MIDEPLAN.

Ministerio de Desarrollo y Planificación (MIDEPLAN). 1996. CASEN 1996 Household Survey. Santiago de Chile: MIDEPLAN

Ministerio de Educación (MINEDUC). 1996. Compendio de Información Estadística. Santiago de Chile: MINEDUC.

Ministerio de Salud (MINSAL). 1999. Anuario de Atenciones y Recursos, 1996. Santiago de Chile: MINSAL.

Pahl, J. 1989. Money and Marriage. London: Macmillan.

Rao, V. 1997. Wife-beating in rural South India: a qualitative and econometric analysis. Social Science and Medicine 44, 1169--80.

Rubalcava, L. and D. Contreras. 1999. Does gender and birth matter when parents specialise on child’s nutrition? Evidence from Chile. Santiago de Chile: Dept. of Economics, U. de Chile.

Schultz, T. P. 1990. Testing the neoclassical model of family labour supply and fertility. Journal of Human Resources 25, 599--634.

Selowsky, M. 1979. Who Benefits from Government Expenditure? A Case Study of Colombia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stern, N. 1984. On the specification of labour supply functions, in Blundel, R.W., Walker, I. (Eds.), Unemployment, Search and Labour Supply. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Superintendencia de la Seguridad Social. 1996. Boletines. Santiago de Chile. Superintendencia de la Seguridad Social.

World Bank. 1997. Chile: Poverty and Income Distribution in a High-Growth Economy: 1987-1995. World Bank Report No. 16377-CH, vol. 2. Washington DC: World Bank