Figures and tables in Microsimulation of child benefits: A review of studies

Abstract

This paper reviews studies that use static non-behavioural microsimulation models of taxes and benefits in the analysis of child benefits. The studies are categorised into four groups according to the main topic of enquiry: the estimation of benefit incidence, the analysis of actual reforms, the importation of policies from other countries and freestyle reforms. The methods for measuring social welfare used in these studies are summarised. Additionally, a brief overview of the research using static behavioural, dynamic, and spatial models is provided. The paper discusses the main findings and recommends directions for further research.

This article contains 2 tables.

Tables

Table 1. Categorisation of studies.

Group	Studies
(1) Benefit incidence	Corak et al. (2005),
	Figari et al. (2011),
	Cantó et al. (2014),
	Hufkens, Verbist, Gábos, & Kalavrezou (2015)
(2) Actual reform	Sutherland & Piachaud (2001),
	Sutherland (2006),
	Fuchs & Lietz (2007),
	Salanauskaite & Verbist (2009),
	Brewer, Browne, & Joyce (2011),
	Kump, Majcen, & Cok (2011),
	Militaru and Cristescu (2017)
(3) Policy import	Atkinson, Bourguignon, & Chiappori (1988),
	Immervoll, Sutherland, & de Vos (2000),
	Levy (2003),
	Baclet, Dell, & Wrohlich (2005),
	Matsaganis et al. (2006),
	Levy, Lietz, & Sutherland (2007b),
	Matsaganis et al. (2007),
	Levy, Morawski, & Myck (2009),
	Salanauskaite & Verbist (2013),
	Avram & Militaru (2016),
	Popova (2016)
(4) Freestyle reform	Sutherland (2001),
	Levy, Lietz, & Sutherland (2007a),
	Levy, Matsaganis, & Sutherland (2013),
	Popova (2013),
	Urban (2017)

Source: Authors.

Table 2. Methods, tools and approaches.

Type	Studies
1. Poverty
FGT(α=0)	Matsaganis et al. (2006), Sutherland (2006), Fuchs and Lietz (2007), Levy et al. (2007a), Levy et al. (2007b), Brewer et al. (2011), Cantó et al. (2014), Hufkens et al. (2015)
FGT(α=0,1)	Immervoll et al. (2000), Sutherland & Piachaud (2001), Corak et al. (2005), Figari et al. (2011), Levy et al. (2013), Popova (2013), Salanauskaite & Verbist (2013), Popova (2016)
FGT(α=0,1,2)	Levy (2003), Matsaganis et al. (2007), Levy et al. (2009), Salanauskaite and Verbist (2009), Avram & Militaru (2016)
Target efficiency indicators	Matsaganis et al. (2007), Levy et al. (2009), Popova (2013), Popova (2016)
2. Income (re)distribution
Lorenz curves and Gini index for incomes	Atkinson et al. (1988), Fuchs & Lietz (2007), Salanauskaite & Verbist (2009), Kump et al. (2011), Popova (2013), Popova (2016), Urban (2017)
Concentration curves and coefficients for taxes and benefits	Matsaganis et al. (2007), Hufkens et al. (2015)
General entropy indices for incomes	Salanauskaite & Verbist (2009)
S80/S20 ratio	Salanauskaite & Verbist (2009)
Decompositions of the change in income inequality	Fuchs and Lietz (2007), Urban (2017)
Atkinson-Bourguignon sequential dominance criterion	Atkinson et al. (1988)
Effective average tax rates	Baclet et al. (2005)
3. Other methods
Gainer-loser table	Immervoll et al. (2000), Sutherland (2006), Matsaganis et al. (2007), Kump et al. (2011)
Transition matrix	Sutherland & Piachaud (2001)

Source: Authors.

Notes: (a) FGT(α=0), FGT(α=1) and FGT(α=2) correspond to “headcount poverty”, “poverty gap” and “poverty severity” measures, respectively, based on Foster, Greer, & Thorbecke (1984).