1932

Abstract

This article surveys the development of nonparametric models and methods for estimation of choice models with nonlinear budget sets. The discussion focuses on the budget set regression, that is, the conditional expectation of a choice variable given the budget set. Utility maximization in a nonparametric model with general heterogeneity reduces the curse of dimensionality in this regression. Empirical results using this regression are different from maximum likelihood and give informative inference. The article also considers the information provided by kink probabilities for nonparametric utility with general heterogeneity. Instrumental variable estimation and the evidence it provides of heterogeneity in preferences are also discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082222-065323
2023-09-13
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/15/1/annurev-economics-082222-065323.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082222-065323&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aaberge R, Dagsvik J, Ström S. 1995. Labor supply responses and welfare effects of tax reforms. Scand. J. Econ. 97:635–59
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beffy M, Blundell R, Bozio A, Laroque G, M. 2019. Labour supply and taxation with restricted choices. J. Econom. 211:16–46
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bertanha M, McCallum AH, Seegert N. 2017. Better bunching, nicer notching. Unpublished manuscript Univ. Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blomquist S. 1983. The effect of income taxation on the labor supply of married men in Sweden. J. Public Econ. 22:167–97
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blomquist S. 1995. Restrictions in labor supply estimation: Is the MaCurdy critique correct?. Econ. Lett. 47:229–35
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blomquist S, Kumar A, Liang CY, Newey WK. 2014. Individual heterogeneity, nonlinear budget sets, and taxable income CEMMAP Work. Pap. CWP 21/14, Cent. Microdata Methods Pract., Inst. Fiscal Stud. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blomquist S, Kumar A, Liang CY, Newey WK. 2015. Individual heterogeneity, nonlinear budget sets, and taxable income CEMMAP Work. Pap. CWP 21/15, Cent. Microdata Meth. Pract., Inst. Fiscal Stud. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blomquist S, Newey WK. 2017. The bunching estimator cannot identify the taxable income elasticity. NBER Work. Pap. 24136
  9. Blomquist S, Newey WK. 2002. Nonparametric estimation with nonlinear budget sets. Econometrica 70:2455–80
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blomquist S, Newey WK, Kumar A, Liang CY. 2021. On bunching and identification of the taxable income elasticity. J. Political Econ. 129:2320–43
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blomquist S, Selin H. 2010. Hourly wage rate and taxable labor income responsiveness to changes in marginal tax rates. J. Public Econ. 94:878–89
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blundell RW, Duncan A, Meghir C. 1998. Estimating labor supply responses using tax reforms. Econometrica 66:827–61
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Blundell RW, Kristensen D, Matzkin R. 2014. Bounding quantile demand functions using revealed preference inequalities. J. Econom. 179:112–27
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blundell RW, Matzkin R. 2014. Control functions in nonseparable simultaneous equations models. Quant. Econ. 5:271–95
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blundell RW, Powell JL 2006. Endogeneity in nonparametric and semiparametric regression models. Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Vol. II M Dewatripont, LP Hansen, SJ Turnovsky 312–57. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Blundell RW, Shephard A. 2012. Employment, hours of work and the optimal taxation of low-income families. Rev. Econ. Stud. 79:481–510
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Burns SA, Ziliak JP. 2017. Identifying the elasticity of taxable income. Econ. J. 127:297–329
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Burtless G, Hausman J. 1978. The effect of taxation on labor supply: evaluating the Gary negative income tax experiment. J. Political Econ. 86:1103–30
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chernozhukov V, Newey WK, Singh R. 2022. Automatic debiased machine learning of causal and structural effects. Econometrica 90:967–1027
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chetty R. 2012. Bounds on elasticities with optimization frictions: a synthesis of micro and macro evidence on labor supply. Econometrica 80:969–1018
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chetty R, Friedman J, Olsen T, Pistaferri L. 2011. Adjustment costs, firm responses, and micro versus macro labor supply elasticities: evidence from Danish tax records. Q. J. Econ. 126:749–804
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dagsvik J. 1994. Discrete and continuous choice, max-stable processes and independence from irrelevant attributes. Econometrica 62:1179–205
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dette H, Hoderlein S, Nuemeyer N. 2011. Testing multivariate economic restrictions using quantiles: the example of Slutsky negative semidefiniteness Work. Pap., Boston Coll. Chestnut Hill, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Eklöf M, Sacklen H. 2000. The Hausman-MaCurdy controversy: Why do the results differ across studies?. J. Hum. Resourc. 35:204–20
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Feldstein M. 1995. The effects of marginal tax rates on taxable income: a panel study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. J. Political Econ. 103:3551–72
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Feldstein M. 1999. Tax avoidance and the deadweight loss of the income tax. Rev. Econ. Stat. 81:4674–80
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Griliches Z, Hausman JA. 1986. Errors in variables in panel regression. J. Econom. 31:93–118
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gruber J, Saez E. 2002. The elasticity of taxable income: evidence and implications. J. Public Econ. 84:1–32
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hausman JA. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46:1251–71
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hausman JA. 1979. The econometrics of labor supply on convex budget sets. Econ. Lett. 3:171–74
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hausman JA 1981. The effect of taxes on labor supply. How Taxes Affect Economic Behavior HJ Aaron, JA Pechman 27–72. Washington, DC: Brook. Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hausman JA. 1985. The econometrics of nonlinear budget sets. Econometrica 53:1255–82
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hausman JA, Newey WK. 2016. Individual heterogeneity and average welfare. Econometrica 84:1225–48
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Keane MP. 2011. Labor supply and taxes: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 49:961–1075
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Keane MP, Moffitt R. 1998. A structural model of multiple welfare program participation and labor supply. Int. Econ. Rev. 39:553–89
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kitamura Y, Stoye J. 2018. Nonparametric analysis of random utility models. Econometrica 86:1883–909
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kleven HJ, Waseem M. 2013. Using notches to uncover optimization frictions and structural elasticities: theory and evidence from Pakistan. Q. J. Econ. 128:669–723
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kline P, Tartari M. 2016. Bounding the labor supply responses to a randomized welfare experiment: a revealed preference approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 106:972–1014
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kumar A. 2008. Labor supply, deadweight loss and Tax Reform Act of 1986: a nonparametric evaluation using panel data. J. Public Econ. 92:236–53
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kumar A, Liang CY. 2020. Estimating taxable income responses with elasticity heterogeneity. J. Public Econ. 188:104209
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MaCurdy T, Green D, Paarsch H. 1990. Assessing empirical approaches for analyzing taxes and labor supply. J. Hum. Resourc. 25:414–90
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Manski C. 2014. Identification of income-leisure preferences and evaluation of income tax policy. Quant. Econ. 5:145–74
    [Google Scholar]
  43. McCallum AH, Seegert N. 2017. Better bunching, nicer notching Unpublished manuscript, Board Gov. Fed. Reserve Syst. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  44. McFadden D. 2005. Revealed stochastic preference: a synthesis. Econ. Theory 26:245–64
    [Google Scholar]
  45. McFadden D, Richter K 1991. Stochastic rationality and revealed stochastic preference. Preferences, Uncertainty, and Rationality J Chipman, D McFadden, K Richter 161–86. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Saez E. 2010. Do taxpayers bunch at kink points?. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2:180–212
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Saez E, Slemrod J, Giertz S. 2012. The elasticity of taxable income with respect to marginal tax rates: a critical review. J. Econ. Lit. 50:3–50
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Soest A. 1995. Structural models of family labor supply: a discrete choice approach. J. Hum. Resourc. 30:63–88
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Soest A, Das M, Gong X. 2002. A structural labour supply model with flexible preferences. J. Econom. 107:345–74
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wales TJ, Woodland AD. 1979. Labour supply and progressive taxes. Rev. Econ. Stud. 46:83–95
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082222-065323
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082222-065323
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error