In this paper, we studied the employment effects of an antipoverty program that does not include any such conditions. The two-year program, implemented in Barcelona (Spain), consisted of a monthly cash transfer to households with income below the subsistence level. The benefit level depended on the household income, size, and composition. On average, households received roughly e500 ($792 PPP) per month, equivalent to nearly 50 percent of the national minimum wage. Although the benefit was household-based, transfers were made to the account of a designated household member, the main recipient. Our findings for overall impacts can be summarized in four parts. First, we find strong evidence for sizeable negative labor supply effects. After two years, households assigned to the cash transfer were 14 percent less likely to have at least one member working compared to households assigned to the control group; main recipients were 20 percent less likely to work. Second, negative employment effects persisted until at least six months after the last payment. Third, we find tentative evidence that effects are mainly driven by households with care responsibilities. Fourth, there is no evidence of effects on social participation and education-related activities.
- Date Posted:
- March 23, 2023
Here, we’re measuring policy views on a granular 0-100 scale based on how people answered more than 50 different policy questions on the 2020 CES. A score of 100 means that one gave the most conservative possible answer on all questions, and a score of zero would mean the same thing for the most liberal possible answer. The index itself was calibrated to reflect a rough 50-50 balance between right- and left-leaning voters, reflecting the reality of a closely divided politics. The original questions selected by the academic team behind the CES tended to yield more liberal-leaning responses. In spite of that, the CES is a very good survey for this kind of analysis, with 60,000 interviews that allow for robust subgroup analysis. Another way to boil this down is to bucket people into different ideological camps based on a 75-percent cutoff for ideological consistency. So, giving the conservative or liberal answer more than 75 percent of the time places you in each of those camps. Otherwise, you’re in a non-ideological middle ground. The 75 percent cutoff is an important one. Above we find Assad-like margins for Donald Trump or Joe Biden in 2020 of more than 98 percent. If you’re above this threshold, you’re not persuadable in the slightest. In the middle, your vote is basically up-for-grabs, progressing from one candidate to other in sliding scale fashion according to your policy views.