Marriage and Marriage Markets

November 14, 2016

 

By: Grossbard, Shoshana (San Diego State University)
This paper reviews models of marriage, with special emphasis on how the sex ratio (the ratio of marriageable men to women) can help explain measurable outcomes such as marriage formation, intra-marriage distribution of consumption goods, savings, labor supply, leisure, type of relationship, divorce, and intermarriage. Predictions are based on Demand and Supply analyses by Becker and the author. Evidence in support of the predictions is reported, most of it based on recent literature.
Keywords: marriage, marriage markets, sex ratio, savings, consumption, labor supply, cohort
JEL: E2 J11 J12 J16 J22 O15 R2
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp10312&r=ltv

 

Advertisements

Health, Consumption and Inequality

November 14, 2016

By: Jose-Victor Rios-Rull (University of Pennsylvania) ; Josep Pijoan-Mas (CEMFI)
We use a stylized model of endogenous health choices to construct compensated variation measures of inequality between individuals in different education and wealth groups at age 50, taking into account differences in consumption, differences in health, and differences in mortality between types. In doing so, we allow for the more disadvantaged types to take actions to improve their health when given some extra income. We use a simple revealed preference argument to measure the health-improving technology with information on consumption, medical expenditure, and health transitions by different types. We find that inequality in education is much more damaging in welfare terms than education in wealth due to the larger differences in life expectancy by education groups than by wealth groups. Our estimates of health technology show that only a small fraction of life expectancy differences between individuals of different education can be imputed to differential medical expenditure after age 50.
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:red:sed016:1235&r=ltv

 


Economic Growth Evens-Out Happiness: Evidence from Six Surveys

November 14, 2016

By: Andrew E. Clark (PSE – Paris School of Economics, PSE – Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – INRA – Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – EHESS – École des hautes études en sciences sociales – ENS Paris – École normale supérieure – Paris – École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC)) ; Sarah Flèche (Centre for Economic Performance – LSE – London School of Economics and Political Science) ; Claudia Senik (PSE – Paris School of Economics, PSE – Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – INRA – Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – EHESS – École des hautes études en sciences sociales – ENS Paris – École normale supérieure – Paris – École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC), UP4 – Université Paris-Sorbonne)
In spite of the great U-turn that saw income inequality rise in Western countries in the 1980s, happiness inequality has fallen in countries that have experienced income growth (but not in those that did not). Modern growth has reduced the share of both the “very unhappy” and the “perfectly happy”. Lower happiness inequality is found both between and within countries, and between and within individuals. Our cross-country regression results argue that the extension of various public goods helps to explain this greater happiness homogeneity. This new stylised fact arguably comes as a bonus to the Easterlin paradox, offering a somewhat brighter perspective for developing countries.
Keywords: development,economic growth,inequality,Happiness,Easterlin paradox
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01080877&r=ltv

 


SWB as a Measure of Individual Well-Being

November 14, 2016

 

By: Andrew E. Clark (PSE – Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – INRA – Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – EHESS – École des hautes études en sciences sociales – ENS Paris – École normale supérieure – Paris – École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC), PSE – Paris School of Economics)
There is much discussion about using subjective well-being measures as inputs into a social welfare function, which will tell us how well societies are doing. But we have (many) more than one measure of subjective well-being. I here consider examples of the three of the main types (life satisfaction, affect, and eudaimonia) in three European surveys. These are quite strongly correlated with each other, and are correlated with explanatory variables in pretty much the same manner. I provide an overview of a recent literature which has compared how well different subjective well-being measures predict future behaviour, and address the issue of the temporality of well-being measures, and whether they should be analysed ordinally or cardinally.
Keywords: Measurement,Predicting behaviour,Affect,Eudaimonia,Subjective well-being,Life satisfaction
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-01134483&r=ltv

 


Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World

November 14, 2016

 

By: Nora Lustig (Department of Economics, Tulane University)
Using comparable fiscal incidence analysis, this paper examines the impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in twenty-five countries for around 2010. Success in fiscal redistribution is driven primarily by redistributive effort (share of social spending to GDP in each country) and the extent to which transfers/subsidies are targeted to the poor and direct taxes targeted to the rich. While fiscal policy always reduces inequality, this is not the case with poverty. Fiscal policy increases poverty in four countries using US$1.25/day PPP poverty line, in 8 countries using US$2.50/day line, and 15 countries using the US$4/day line (over and above market income poverty). While spending on pre-school and primary school is pro-poor (i.e., the per capita transfer declines with income) in almost all countries, pro-poor secondary school spending is less prevalent, and tertiary education spending tends to be progressive only in relative terms (i.e., equalizing but not pro-poor). Health spending is always equalizing except for Jordan.
Keywords: fiscal incidence, social spending, inequality, poverty, Developing Countries.
JEL: H22 H5 D31 I3
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tul:ceqwps:1323&r=ltv