A test of a unitary model on labour supply using the information of household decision-making systems

被引:8
|
作者
Morozumi, Ryoko [1 ]
机构
[1] Toyama Univ, Fac Econ, Toyama 9308555, Japan
关键词
unitary model; household resource allocation; decision-making system; labour supply; two-earner couple; INTRAHOUSEHOLD ALLOCATION; RESOURCES; BEHAVIOR; MARRIAGE; INCOME;
D O I
10.1080/00036846.2011.589810
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article tests whether a unitary model is consistent with household behaviour using the data of two-earner couples. It focuses on the unitary model assuming that all family members have the same utility function. The analysis investigates the difference in a husband's and wife's labour supply between the household that determines the wife to be the main decision-maker and the household that selects a different decision-making system under the control of individual and household characteristics. The estimation employs a treatment effects model to consider the selectivity bias caused by unmeasured characteristics. Results show that the household with the wife as the main decision-maker increases the husband's working hours by 15% and decreases the wife's working hours by 59%, compared to the household that selects a different decision-making system. This implies that the unitary model is rejected. Additionally, the husband's wage rate, the husband's and wife's health status, and their gambling addiction determine the household decision-making system such as the variables that determine the reservation utility of not being married. The effect of the decision-making system on the labour supply and that of the determinant factors on the decision-making system are consistent with the implications obtained from Nash bargaining models and collective models.
引用
收藏
页码:4291 / 4300
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Decision-Making Process of Workers in Using Sick Time
    Sandal, Candace L.
    Click, Elizabeth R.
    Dowling, Donna A.
    Guzik, Arlene
    WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY, 2014, 62 (08) : 318 - 324
  • [42] A supply chain perspective of stakeholder identification as a tool for responsible policy and decision-making
    Fritz, Morgane M. C.
    Rauter, Romana
    Baumgartner, Rupert J.
    Dentchev, Nikolay
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2018, 81 : 63 - 76
  • [43] Models in animal collective decision-making: information uncertainty and conflicting preferences
    Conradt, Larissa
    INTERFACE FOCUS, 2012, 2 (02) : 226 - 240
  • [44] Gender differences in reward sensitivity and information processing during decision-making
    Byrne, Kaileigh A.
    Worthy, Darrell A.
    JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2015, 50 (01) : 55 - 71
  • [45] Decision-Making Models for Using Multimedia Marketing in Enterprises
    Hsieh, Pei-Hsuan
    Hsiung, Yu-Lu
    PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES, 2020, 28 (04): : 2667 - 2687
  • [46] Interpersonal coordination tendencies and perception of visual information for decision-making in futsal
    de Oliveira, Thiago Augusto Costa
    Davids, Keith
    Denardi, Renata Alvares
    Zalla, Souvenir
    Correa, Umberto Cesar
    PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE, 2023, 66
  • [47] Sexual orientation and household decision making. Same-sex couples' balance of power and labor supply choices
    Oreffice, Sonia
    LABOUR ECONOMICS, 2011, 18 (02) : 145 - 158
  • [48] Real-Time Decision-Making Systems: Approaches to Construction
    Zakharchenko, I.
    Dmitriev, A.
    Ovcharenko, V.
    Maslov, L.
    Pavlenko, M.
    Timochko, M.
    Kryzhevska, K.
    PROBLEMELE ENERGETICII REGIONALE, 2022, (01): : 125 - 140
  • [49] Classification of Decision-Making Information Models as a Part of Aircraft Control System
    Zaritskyi, O.
    Pavlenko, P.
    2016 4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF NAVIGATION AND MOTION CONTROL (MSNMC), 2016, : 228 - 231
  • [50] People's thresholds of decision-making against a tornado threat using dynamic probabilistic hazard information
    Miran, Seyed M.
    Ling, Chen
    James, Joseph J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2020, 42