Optimal disability assistance when fraud and stigma matter

I study the optimal redistributive structure when individuals with distinct productivities also differ in disutility of work due to either disability or distaste for work. Taxpayers have resentment against inactive benefit recipients because some of them are not actually disabled but lazy. Therefore disabled people who take up transfers are stigmatized. Their stigma disutility increases with the number of non-disabled recipients. Tagging transfers according to disability characteristics decreases stigma. However, tagging is costly and imperfect. In this context, I show how the level of the per capita cost of monitoring relative to labour earnings of low-wage workers determines the optimality of tagging. Under mild conditions, despite their stigma disutility, inactive and disabled people get a strictly lower consumption than low-wage workers. The results are valid under a utilitarian criterion and a criterion which does not compensate for distaste for work.Tagging, Disability benefit, Fraud, Stigma

Optimal disability assistance when fraud and stigma matter

I study the optimal redistributive structure when individuals with distinct productivities also differ in disutility of work due to either disability or distase for work. Taxpayers have resentment against inactive benefit recipients because some of them are not actually disabled but lazy. Therefore, disabled people who take up transfers are stigmatized. Their stigma disutility increases with the number of non-disabled recipients. Tagging transfers according to disability characteristics decreases stigme. However, tagging is costly and imperfect. In this context, I show how the level of the per capital cost of monitoring relative to labor earnings of low-wage workers determines the optimality of tagging. Under mild conditions, despite their stigma disutility, inactive and disabled people get a strictly lower consumption than low-wage workers. The results are valid under a utilitarian criterion and a criterion which does not compensage for distate for work.Tagging, Disability, Benefit, Fraud, Stigma

Take it or Leave it: Take-up, Optimal Transfer Programs, and Monitoring

This paper studies the optimal income redistribution and optimal monitoring when disability benefits are intended for disabled people but when some able agents with high distaste for work mimic them (type II errors). Labor supply responses are at the extensive margin and endogenous take-up costs may burden disabled recipients (because of either a reputational externality caused by cheaters or a snowball effect). Under paternalistic utilitarian preferences that do not compensate for distaste for work, inactive disabled recipients should obtain strictly lower consumption than disabled workers. The cost of monitoring supports adoption of an Earned Income Tax Credit. However, and surprisingly, with or without take-up costs, even if perfect monitoring is costless, it proves optimal to have type II errors. These results are robust to a utilitarian criterion. The paper provides numerical simulations calibrated on U.S. data.optimal income taxation, tagging, take-up, extensive margin

Take it or Leave it : Optimal Transfer Programs, Monitoring and Takeup

This paper studie the optimal income redistribution and monitoring when disability benefits are intended for disabled people but where some able agents with high distastes for work mimic them (type II errors). Labour supply responses are at the extensive margin and endogenous takeup costs burden disabled recipients (due to a reputational externality caused by cheaters or due to a snowball effect). Under a non-welfarist criterion which does not compensate for distaste for work, (inactive) disabled recipients get a strictly lower consumption than disabled workers. The usual conditions under which the optimal transfer program is a Negative Income Tax or an Earned Income Tax Credit are challenged, due to monitoring. We also show that even if perfect monitoring is costless, it is optimal to have type II errors. These results are robust to a utilitarian criterion. Numerical simulations calibrated on US data are providedOptimal income taxation; tagging; takeup; extensive margin

Optimal universal and categorical benefits with classification errors and imperfect enforcement

We determine the optimal combination of a universal benefit, B, and categorical benefit, C, for an economy in which individuals differ in both their ability to work – modelled as an exogenous zero quantity constraint on labour supply – and, conditional on being able to work, their productivity at work. C is targeted at those unable to work, and is conditioned in two dimensions: ex-ante an individual must be unable to work to be awarded the benefit , whilst ex-post a recipient must not subsequently work. However, the ex-ante conditionality may be imperfectly enforced due to Type I(false rejection) and Type II (false award) classification errors, whilst, in addition, the ex post conditionality may be imperfectly enforced. If there are no classification errors – and thus no enforcement issues – it is always optimal to set C>0, whilst B=0 only if the benefit budget is sufficiently small. However, when classification errors occur, B=0 only if there are no Type I errors and the benefit budget is sufficiently small, while the conditions under which C>0 depend on the enforcement of the ex-post conditionality. We consider two discrete alternatives. Under No Enforcement C>0 only if the test administering C has some discriminatory power. In addition, social welfare is decreasing in the propensity to make each type of error. However, under Full Enforcement C>0 for all levels of discriminatory power, including that of no discriminatory power. Furthermore, whilst social welfare is decreasing in the propensity to make Type I errors, there are certain conditions under which it is increasing in the propensity to make Type II errors. This implies that there may be conditions under which it would be welfare enhancing to lower the chosen eligibility threshold – supporting the suggestion by Goodin (1985) to “err on the side of kindness”.Postprin

Economic theory and the welfare state : a survey and interpretation.

'I propose here the view that, when the market fails to achieve an optimal state, society will, to some extent at least, recognize the gap, and nonmarket social institutions will arise attempting to bridge it....' (Kenneth Arrow 1963, p. 947). 'Economic theorists traditionally banish discussions of information to footnotes. Serious consideration of costs of communication, imperfect knowledge ... would, it is believed, complicate without informing.... [T]his comforting myth is false. Some of the most important conclusions of economic theory are not robust to considerations of imperfect information' (Michael Rothschild and Joseph Stiglitz 1976, p. 629). 'That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the supply of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you, should go on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your leg, is enough to make one despair of political humanity' (George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma, 1911).

Essays on categorical and universal welfare provision : design, optimal taxation and enforcement issues.

Part I comprises three chapters (2-4) that analyse the optimal combination of a universal benefit (B≥0) and categorical benefit (C≥0) for an economy where individuals differ in both their ability to work and, if able to work, their productivity. C is ex-ante conditioned on applicants being unable to work, and ex-post conditioned on recipients not working. In Chapter 2 the benefit budget is fixed but the test awarding C makes Type I and Type II errors. Type I errors guarantee B>0 at the optimum to ensure all unable individuals have positive consumption. The analysis with Type II errors depends on the enforcement of the ex-post condition. Under No Enforcement C>0 at the optimum conditional on the awards test having some discriminatory power; whilst maximum welfare falls with both error propensities. Under Full Enforcement C>0 at the optimum always; and whilst maximum welfare falls with the Type I error propensity it may increase with the Type II error propensity. Chapters 3 and 4 generalise the analysis to a linear-income tax framework. In Chapter 3 categorical status is perfectly observable. Optimal linear and piecewise-linear tax expressions are written more generally to capture cases where it is suboptimal to finance categorical transfers to eliminate inequality in the average social marginal value of income. Chapter 4 then derives the optimal linear income tax for the case with classification errors and Full Enforcement. Both equity and efficiency considerations capture the incentives an increase in the tax rate generates for able individuals to apply for C. Part II (Chapter 5) focuses on the decisions of individuals to work when receiving C, given a risk of being detected and fined proportional to C. Under CARA preferences the risk premium associated with the variance in benefit income is convex-increasing in C, thus giving C a role in enforcement

Essays on unemployment and labour market policies.

There is a considerable amount of heterogeneity in the individual success of workers on the labour market. This justifies the existence of social insurance and of redistribution programs. However, when investigating these policies, it is essential to take into account the search and informational frictions that characterize the labour market. The different chapters of this thesis all rely on dynamic macroeconomic representation of the economy in order to address labour market issues from either a positive or a normative perspective. The first chapter characterizes the optimal design of labour market institutions in a dynamic search model of the labour market. Particular attention is paid to the interaction between the different policy instruments due to the search-induced general equilibrium effects. The following chapter investigates, from a positive perspective, the impact of growth by creative destruction on the rate of unemployment when on-the-job search is allowed. Chapter 3 solves for the optimal provision of disability insurance in a dynamic context with imperfectly observable health. Chapter 4 characterizes the optimal redistributive policy with an endogenous decision to retire. Finally, the last chapter investigates, theoretically and empirically, the long-run interactions between the provision of unemployment insurance and the cultural transmission of work ethic

Essays on categorical and universal welfare provision : design, optimal taxation and enforcement issues.

Part I comprises three chapters (2-4) that analyse the optimal combination of a universal benefit (B≥0) and categorical benefit (C≥0) for an economy where individuals differ in both their ability to work and, if able to work, their productivity. C is ex-ante conditioned on applicants being unable to work, and ex-post conditioned on recipients not working. In Chapter 2 the benefit budget is fixed but the test awarding C makes Type I and Type II errors. Type I errors guarantee B>0 at the optimum to ensure all unable individuals have positive consumption. The analysis with Type II errors depends on the enforcement of the ex-post condition. Under No Enforcement C>0 at the optimum conditional on the awards test having some discriminatory power; whilst maximum welfare falls with both error propensities. Under Full Enforcement C>0 at the optimum always; and whilst maximum welfare falls with the Type I error propensity it may increase with the Type II error propensity. Chapters 3 and 4 generalise the analysis to a linear-income tax framework. In Chapter 3 categorical status is perfectly observable. Optimal linear and piecewise-linear tax expressions are written more generally to capture cases where it is suboptimal to finance categorical transfers to eliminate inequality in the average social marginal value of income. Chapter 4 then derives the optimal linear income tax for the case with classification errors and Full Enforcement. Both equity and efficiency considerations capture the incentives an increase in the tax rate generates for able individuals to apply for C. Part II (Chapter 5) focuses on the decisions of individuals to work when receiving C, given a risk of being detected and fined proportional to C. Under CARA preferences the risk premium associated with the variance in benefit income is convex-increasing in C, thus giving C a role in enforcement