PL EN
RESEARCH PAPER
Evaluating Poland’s Family 500+ Child Support Programme
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
FAME|GRAPE, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Filip Premik   

FAME|GRAPE, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2021-07-31
Final revision date: 2022-01-06
Acceptance date: 2022-04-13
Publication date: 2022-06-30
 
GNPJE 2022;310(2):1–19
 
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
I investigate the immediate effects of the introduction of a large-scale child benefit programme on the labour supply of household members in Poland. Due to non-random eligibility and the universal character of the programme, standard evaluation estimators may be inconsistent. In order to address this issue, I propose an approach that combines difference-in-difference (DID) propensity score based methods with the covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS) approach developed by Imai and Ratkovic [2014]. The DID estimators exploit the time dimension to uncover the causal effect of interest. The CBPS method is expected to significantly reduce the bias resulting from systematic differences between treated and untreated subpopulations. I also account for potential heterogeneity among households by focusing on comparisons between locally defined subpopulations of individuals, which jointly provide a comprehensive view on the overall impact. I find that on average previously employed mothers maintain their labour supply although there are heterogeneous weak responses depending on the age of the youngest children. Additionally, mothers who did not work before the introduction of the programme are even less likely to do so having received the benefit. The fathers’ labour supply remained mostly unaffected by the programme, with the exception of previously unemployed fathers, who tend to work more often having received the benefits. This finding may suggest that the programme strengthens the traditional division of household roles, with the male being the main earner.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Polish National Science Centre (grant No. 2016/23/N/HS4/03637).
 
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Abadie A. [2005], Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators, The Review of Economic Studies, 72: 1–19.
 
2.
Angrist J. D., Pischke J.‑S. [2010], The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24: 3–30.
 
3.
Austin P. C. [2011], An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46: 399–424.
 
4.
Averett S. L., Hotchkiss J. L. [1997], Female labor supply with a discontinuous, nonconvex budget constraint: incorporation of a part-time/full-time wage differential, Review of Economics and Statistics, 79: 461–470.
 
5.
Besley T., Coate S. [1992], Workfare versus welfare: Incentive arguments for work requirements in poverty-alleviation programs, The American Economic Review, 82: 249–261.
 
6.
Black D. A., Kolesnikova N., Sanders S. G., Taylor L. J. [2013], Are children normal?, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95: 21–33.
 
7.
Blundell R., Dias M. C., Meghir C., Reenen J. [2004], Evaluating the employment impact of a mandatory job search program, Journal of the European Economic Association, 2: 569–606.
 
8.
Blundell R., Costa Dias M., Meghir C., Shaw J. [2016a], Female labor supply, human capital, and welfare reform, Econometrica, 84: 1705–1753.
 
9.
Blundell R., Pistaferri L., Saporta-Eksten I. [2016b], Consumption Inequality and Family Labor Supply, American Economic Review, 106: 387–435.
 
10.
Burtless G., Hausman J. A. [1978], The effect of taxation on labor supply: Evaluating the Gary negative income tax experiment, Journal of Political Economy, 86: 1103–1130.
 
11.
Caliendo M., Kopeinig S. [2008], Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching, Journal of Economic Surveys, 22: 31–72.
 
12.
Card D., Krueger A. B. [1994], Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, American Economic Review, 84: 772–793.
 
13.
Connelly R. [1992], The effect of child care costs on married women’s labor force participation, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74: 83–90.
 
14.
Connelly R., Kimmel J. [2003], Marital status and full-time/part-time work status in child care choices, Applied Economics, 35: 761–777.
 
15.
Dehejia R. H., Wahba S. [1999], Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94: 1053–1062.
 
16.
Dehejia R. H., Wahba S. [2002], Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies, Review of Economics and Statistics, 84: 151–161.
 
17.
Ghez G., Becker G. S. [1975], The Allocation of Time and Goods Over the Life Cycle, NBER.
 
18.
Graham J. W., Beller A. H. [1989], The effect of child support payments on the labor supply of female family heads: An econometric analysis, Journal of Human Resources, 24: 664–688.
 
19.
Heckman J. J. [1974], Effects of child-care programs on women’s work effort, Journal of Political Economy, 82: S136–S163.
 
20.
Heckman J. J., Ichimura H., Todd P. E. [1997], Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme, The Review of Economic Studies, 64: 605–654.
 
21.
Houngbedji K. [2016], ABSDID: Stata module to estimate treatment effect with Abadie semiparametric DID estimator, Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics.
 
22.
Hoynes H. W. [1996], Welfare Transfers in Two-Parent Families: Labor Supply and Welfare Participation Under AFDC-UP, Econometrica, 64: 295–332.
 
23.
Imai K., Ratkovic M. [2014], Covariate balancing propensity score, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76: 243–263.
 
24.
Jacobsen J. P., Pearce III J. W., Rosenbloom J. L. [1999], The effects of childbearing on married women’s labor supply and earnings: using twin births as a natural experiment, Journal of Human Resources, 34: 449–474.
 
25.
Kimmel J. [1998], Child care costs as a barrier to employment for single and married mothers, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80: 287–299.
 
26.
Koebel K., Schirle T. [2016], The Differential Impact of Universal Child Benefits on the Labour Supply of Married and Single Mothers, Canadian Public Policy, 42: 49–64.
 
27.
Leuven E., Sianesi B. [2003], PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing, Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics.
 
28.
Luna L. G. [2011], The effects of a universal child benefit, mimeo.
 
29.
Magda I., Kielczewska A., Brandt N. [2018), The Effects of Large Universal Child Benefits on Female Labour Supply, IZA Discussion Paper No. 11652.
 
30.
Moffitt R. [1983], An economic model of welfare stigma, The American Economic Review, 73: 1023–1035.
 
31.
Moffitt R. [1990], The Econometrics of Kinked Budget Constraints, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4: 119–139.
 
32.
Moffitt R. [2002], Welfare programs and labor supply, Handbook of Public Economics, 4: 2393–2430.
 
33.
Myck M. [2016], Estimating Labour Supply Response to the Introduction of the Family 500+ Programme, Centre For Economic Analysis (CenEA) Working Paper Series WP01/16.
 
34.
Myck M., Trzcinski K. [2019], From Partial to Full Universality: The Family 500+ Programme in Poland and its Labor Supply Implications, ifo DICE Report, 17: 36–44.
 
35.
Nakamura A., Nakamura M. [1992], The econometrics of female labor supply and children, Econometric Reviews, 11: 1–71.
 
36.
Paradowski P. R., Wolszczak-Derlacz J., Sierminska E. [2020], Inequality, poverty and child benefits: Evidence from a natural experiment, mimeo, LIS Working Paper Series.
 
37.
Premik F. [2021], Estimating the effects of universal transfers: new ML approach and application to labor supply reaction to child benefits, mimeo.
 
38.
Rosenbaum P. R.,. Rubin D. B [1983], The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika, 70: 41–55.
 
39.
Rosenzweig M. R., Schultz T. P. [1985], The Supply and Demand of Births and their Life-Cycle Consequences, American Economic Review, 75: 992–1015.
 
40.
Sant’Anna P. H., Zhao J. [2020], Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators, Journal of Econometrics, 219: 101–122.
 
41.
Spencer D. [2003], Love’s labor’s lost? The disutility of work and work avoidance in the economic analysis of labor supply, Review of Social Economy, 61: 235–250.
 
42.
Zhao Z. [2004], Using matching to estimate treatment effects: data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence, Review of Economics and Statistics, 86: 91–107.
 
eISSN:2300-5238