Does rural subsistence allowance participation induce work disincentives: an empirical test based on CFPS data
【Abstract】Using national longitudinal survey data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) in 2012 and 2014 and a combination of propensity score matching and difference-in-differences methods, this article empirically tests the effect of rural subsistence allowance participation on able-bodied recipients’ work incentive and further investigates the heterogenous work incentive effects among different groups. The article finds that rural subsistence allowance participation had a significant negative effect on able-bodied recipients’ work incentive. This result still held after the work outcome variable considered additional information on working willingness.Receiving different subsistence allowance benefit amounts had heterogenous work incentive effects. Specifically, receiving a high-level benefit amount had a significant negative effect on work incentive, while the work incentive effect of receiving a low-level benefit amount was not statistically significant.The work disincentive effects were more significant among samples who were female, older, low-educated and unhealthy, and lived in the eastern region. All of these results were robust across different matching methods. Three types of policy initiative can be tried to control the work disincentive and welfare dependence arising from rural subsistence allowance participation. First, the marginal tax rate benefits need to be reduced by adopting an earned income disregard and establishing a mechanism of gradual reduction of subsistence allowance benefits after recipients find a job. Second, the reforms should consider to gradually give up the tied eligibility for rural subsistence allowance and other supplemental assistance programs. Third, positive and targeted employment assistance should be provided to promote the able-bodied subsistence allowance recipients to work.
【Keywords】 rural subsistence allowance; work disincentives; panel data; PSM-DID;
(Translated by XU Ziyue)
. ① For example, there are community targeting, classified targeting, and agent household targeting methods. [^Back]
. ① In order to differentiate between the two, samples receiving no subsistence allowance before matching are referred to as the reference group, and those receiving no subsistence allowance after matching are called the control group. [^Back]
. ① The common trend hypothesis is an important prerequisite for identifying policy effects using the DID method. This hypothesis claims that without policy intervention, there is no significant difference in the outcome variables of the intervention and reference groups during the two periods. The PSM method can eliminate the systemic differences between the control group and the intervention group except for policy intervention to a certain extent, so as to better meet the common trend hypothesis. [^Back]
. ② The PSM method matches samples by controlling the observable features, but there may be differences in the unobservable features between the intervention group and the control group. The difference-in-differences (DID) between the two periods helps to eliminate the disturbance of unobservable heterogeneity that does not alter over time. [^Back]
. ③ For example, many surveys only used the question, do you have a job now, to determine the employment status of the sample. [^Back]
. ① The household net assets per capita come from the calculation results of Jin et al. [^Back]
. ② Housing difficulties refer to situations when houses are too small that children over 12 years old share the same room with their parents, three generations live in the same room, heterosexual children over the age of 12 share the same room, beds are set up during the night and dismantled during the day, and people sleep in the living room. [^Back]
. ① We define M = family out-of-pocket medical expenditure/family non-food expenditure. If M < 40%, the family will be defined as not having catastrophic medical expenditures. If 40% ≤ M < 80%, the family will be defined as having a mild catastrophic medical expenditure. If M ≥ 80%, the family will be defined as having a severe catastrophic medical expenditure. [^Back]
. ② Considering that community characteristics were unlikely to change within two years, CFPS2012 did not investigate community characteristics as they were surveyed in the CFPS2010. Therefore, this study used the community characteristics in CFPS2010 to measure the initial community characteristics. [^Back]
. ① The independent variables of the ordered Probit model are completely consistent with those in Table 2. Due to space limitations, this result is not presented in the article. [^Back]
 Liu, L. China Civil Affairs(中国民政), (21): 49–51 (2017).
 Han, H. & Xu, Y. Economic Review (经济评论), (6): 63–77 (2014).
 Han, H. & Gao, Q. Journal of Public Management (公共管理学报), (2): 81–96 (2017).
 Golan J, Sicular T, Umapathi N. Unconditional Cash Transfers in China: Who Benefits from the Rural Minimum Living Standard Guarantee (Dibao) Program?. World Development, 2017, 93: 316–336.
 Kakwani N, Li S, Wang X, Zhu M. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Rural Minimum Living Standard Guarantee (Dibao) Program in China. China Economic Review, 2019, 53: 1–14.
 Han H, Gao Q, Xu Y. Welfare Participation and Family Consumption Choices in Rural China. Global Social Welfare, 2016, 3(4): 223–241.
 Zhao L, Guo Y, Shao T. Can the Minimum Living Standard Guarantee Scheme Enable the Poor to Escape the Poverty Trap in Rural China?. International Journal of Social Welfare, 2017, 26(4): 314–328.
 Wang Y, Gao Q, Yang S. Prioritising Health and Food: Social Assistance and Family Consumption in Rural China. An International Journal, 2019, 17(1): 48–75.
 [US] Varian, H. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach (Ninth Edition). Shanghai: Truth & Wisdom Press, (2015).
 Qiu, Y. & He, X. CASS Journal of Political Science (政治学研究), (3): 63–74 (2017).
 Li M, Walker R. Shame, Stigma and the Take-up of Social Assistance: Insights from Rural China. International Journal of Social Welfare, 2017, 26(3): 230–238.
 Dasgupta P, Ray D. Inequality as a Determinant of Malnutrition and Unemployment: Theory. The Economic Journal, 1986, 96(384): 1011–1034.
 Gao Q, Zhai F, Yang S, Li S. Does Welfare Enable Family Expenditures on Human Capital? Evidence from China. World Development, 2014, 64: 219–231.
 Baird S, McKenzie D, Özler B. The Effects of Cash Transfers on Adult Labor Market Outcomes. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8404, 2018.
 Asfaw S, Davis B, Dewbre J, Handa S, Winters P. Cash Transfer Programme, Productive Activities and Labour Supply: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Kenya. Journal of Development Studies, 2014, 50(8): 1172–1196.
 Covarrubias K, Davis B, Winters P. From Protection to Production: Productive Impacts of the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2012, 4(1): 50–77.
 Gassmann F, Trindade L. Effect of Means-Tested Social Transfers on Labor Supply: An Empirical Analysis of Work Disincentives. European Journal of Development Research, 2019, 31(2): 189–214.
 de Brauw A, Gilligan D, Hoddinott J, Roy S. Bolsa Familia and Household Labor Supply. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 2015, 63(3): 423–457.
 Alzua M, Cruces G, Ripani L. Welfare Programs and Labor Supply in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Latin America. Journal of Population Economics, 2013, 26(4): 1255–1284.
 Banerjee A, Hanna R, Kreindler G, Olken B. Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs. The World Bank Research Observer, 2017, 32(2): 155–184.
 Alderman H, Yemtsov R. How Can Safety Nets Contribute to Economic Growth?. World Bank Economic Review, 2013, 28(1): 1–20.
 Ci, Q. & Lan, J. Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Sciences) (武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)), 68(4): 111–119 (2015).
 Han, K. & Guo, Y. Sociological Studies (社会学研究), (2): 149–167 (2012).
 Xiao, M. & Li, F. Population Journal (人口学刊), 39(1): 102–112 (2017).
 Ma, S. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) (清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)), 32(5): 183–194 (2017).
 Chen, Y. & Xu, Z. Journal of Chongqing University of Technology (重庆理工大学学报), 27(10): 32–37 (2013).
 Gao Q, Wu S, Zhai F. Welfare Participation and Time Use in China. Social Indicators Research, 2015, 124: 863–887.
 Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd P. Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 1997, 64(4): 605–654.
 Xie, Y., Zhang, X., Li, J., Yu, X. et al. China Family Panel Studies 2013 (中国民生发展报告2013). Beijing: Peking University Press, (2013).
 Jin, Y. & Xie, Y. 中国家庭追踪调查技术报告CFPS-29. (2014).
 Han H, Gao Q. Community-Based Welfare Targeting and Political Elite Capture: Evidence from Rural China. World Development, 2019, 115: 145–159.
 Han, H. Economic Perspectives (经济学动态), (2): 49–64 (2018).
 Han, H. & Gao, Q. Chinese Journal of Population Science (中国人口科学), (3): 73–84 (2018).
 Tang, J. Studies on Party and Government (党政研究), (5): 121–125 (2017).