MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121913503

Assessing the Impact of Tax and Transfer Policies on Labour Supply: A Survey

2002· article· en· W2121913503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernard Fortin, Guy Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabour supplyEconomicsWelfareLabour economicsPublic economicsMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in parameters of tax and transfer programs can induce individuals to alter their behaviour in a wide variety of ways, including changes in labour supply, in the nature of employee compensation, in the choice of working in the underground economy, in savings decisions, in human capital investments and in fertility decisions. The magnitude of these responses is of critical importance in the formulation of adequate tax and transfer policies. Thus the behavioural effects of income taxes and those implicit in means-tested transfer programs may strongly influence the impact of these policies on income, tax receipts, budgetary costs and welfare. In this paper, we abide with the tradition of evaluating the impact of tax and transfer programs on labour supply at both the extensive (the decision to work or not) and the intensive margins (the number of hours worked). We provide both a theoretical and empirical survey of the labour supply impact of tax and transfer programs. An important part of the empirical results discussed in this paper focuses on the labour supply impact of tax and transfer reforms that occurred in the US, in the UK and in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIRANO Project ReportsSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207