Labor supply response on windfall gains

 The sources detail a robust survey experiment methodology designed to study the causal impact of windfall gains on labor supply, addressing major empirical challenges in labor economics.

Study Overview and Context

The study focuses on the labor supply response to wealth or unearned income shocks, recognizing this as a central question in labor economics that helps distinguish between uncompensated and compensated labor supply responses to wage changes.

Policy Relevance: Understanding the magnitude of this income effect is crucial for evaluating policies. Specifically, the research aims to inform the discussion surrounding:

• The criticism that transfer programs (like Universal Basic Income, UBI) may discourage work or job search.
• The evaluation of recent fiscal interventions, such as one-time bonuses and transfers introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis.
• The design of policies that directly affect wealth, such as the taxation of inheritances or the implementation of wealth taxes.

Scope of Shocks: The methodology is explicitly designed to study labor supply responses to both more common, smaller wealth or unearned income shocks (like transfer programs) and less frequent and larger shocks (such as inheritances).

Methodology and Experimental Design

To overcome the challenge of isolating truly exogenous changes in wealth—a difficulty faced by traditional studies using non-experimental data—the authors designed a large-scale survey experiment.

Data Source and Sample:

• The experiment was conducted using the ECB’s Consumer Expectations Survey (CES), a high-frequency online panel survey capturing euro area consumer expectations and behaviors.
• The data was drawn from a special-purpose survey administered in June 2022.
• The sample is large (about 10,000 consumers total) and population-representative across the six largest euro area economies: Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and the Netherlands.

Randomized Treatment (Windfall Gains):

• Respondents were randomly assigned to one of five hypothetical lottery winnings (windfall gains) ranging from €5,000 to €100,000.
• The randomization ensures that the resulting windfall gains are exogenous and orthogonal to respondents’ observed and unobserved characteristics, allowing the researchers to estimate the causal impact of wealth shocks on labor supply and explore heterogeneity across demographic groups.
• The range of prizes allows testing the hypothesis that responses are heterogeneous with respect to the size of the shock—a key distinction, as standard theory suggests responses should be independent of shock size unless frictions or adjustment costs are present.
• The smallest prize, €5,000, serves as the baseline or reference group for estimating the effects of larger gains.

Measured Outcomes (Three Dimensions of Labor Supply): The experiment elicited self-reported adjustments in three key dimensions of labor supply decisions over the next 12 months:

1. Extensive Margin (Employed): Employed respondents were asked about their plans for working, including the option to stop working entirely (by resigning or taking unpaid leave).
2. Intensive Margin (Employed): Employed respondents (excluding those who would stop working) were asked to indicate how many more or fewer hours they would work per week (ranging from 0 to ±11 hours or more). This focus on hours worked, rather than earnings, is an innovation that helps abstract from potential non-linearities in the wage schedule.
3. Job Search Effort (Non-Employed): Individuals not currently working (including those out of the labor force) were asked how actively they would look for a job over the next 12 months (e.g., search more, search less, stop looking, or start looking).

Empirical Framework: The study utilizes the randomization to estimate a first-difference specification of the standard labor supply equation (Equation 1). Since the windfall gain ($\beta_{i,t}$) is randomly assigned, it is independent of any unobserved variables that might affect the labor supply decision. The study uses logit regressions to estimate the probability of continuing to work (extensive margin) and OLS regressions for changes in weekly hours (intensive margin). For the non-employed, logit regressions estimate the effect on search intensity.

Methodological Advantages and Limitations

Advantages over Prior Literature: The survey experiment approach addresses several major challenges encountered by previous studies using natural or quasi-experiments (like lottery winnings or inheritances):

• Causal Identification: Random assignment ensures a clean identification of the causal effect of exogenous wealth shocks.
• Representativeness: Unlike studies relying on specific sub-groups like lottery winners or inheritance recipients, this approach uses a representative sample of the population.
• Non-linear Effects: The random variation in shock size allows the researchers to explicitly test for and identify the non-linear response of labor supply, consistent with labor market frictions or adjustment costs.
• Comprehensive Outcomes: The design captures both the extensive and intensive margins of labor supply using weekly hours worked and explicitly includes the often-overlooked dimension of search effort among the non-employed.

Acknowledged Limitations: The authors acknowledge several limitations inherent in a survey-based approach:

• Intention vs. Behavior: The responses capture intentions rather than actual realized choices, which may diverge from real-world behavior.
• Framing and Wording: Responses may be affected by differences in question wording or framing effects.
• Transitory Nature of Shock: The hypothetical windfall is a one-time shock. A rational consumer would smooth the consumption of leisure over their remaining working life, implying that the immediate labor supply response might be relatively modest.
• Tax Interpretation: The analysis assumes that individuals interpret the hypothetical windfall gain as an after-tax change in wealth.
• General Equilibrium Effects: The study analyzes only individual-level responses (partial equilibrium) and does not capture aggregate demand effects or potential intra-household spillovers (e.g., a spouse adjusting their labor supply). Thus, the estimated reduction in labor supply is likely an upper bound of the true effects.

---

Analogy to solidify understanding: The methodology employed here is like a carefully designed wind tunnel test for labor decisions. Instead of observing how actual planes (individuals) react to unpredictable, real-world gusts (actual wealth shocks, which are often correlated with unknown factors), the researchers put a representative model of a plane into a chamber and precisely control the intensity and size of the gust (the randomized hypothetical windfall). This allows them to cleanly isolate the causal impact of the "wind" (the unearned wealth) on its flight path (labor supply) without interference from other variables, even though the reaction observed is the plane's intended response in the model, not necessarily its final real-world movement.

The sources present clear key findings regarding the labor supply response to windfall gains, emphasizing a **non clear key findings regarding the labor supply response to windfall gains, emphasizing a non-linear effect where only substantial amounts lead to statistically significant reductions in work effort, which is consistent with the presence of labor market frictions.

These findings are central to the study's overall context: understanding the impact of wealth shocks on labor supply, which is critical for evaluating policy interventions such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) and fiscal stimulus transfers. The experimental design, which randomly assigns windfall gains ranging from €5,000 to €100,000, allows for the causal identification of these effects across three margins of labor supply.

Key Findings: Non-linear Labor Supply Reduction

The most important finding across all labor supply dimensions is that the negative income effect is concentrated among the largest hypothetical gains:

1. Extensive Margin (Probability of Working)

The extensive margin refers to whether employed individuals choose to exit the labor force entirely (e.g., by resigning or taking unpaid leave).

• Small Shocks (≤ €25,000): Windfall gains of €25,000 or less have no statistically significant effects on the probability of continuing to work.
• Large Shocks (€50,000 to €100,000): Gains in this substantial range reduce the probability of working by 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points. Relative to an 84% baseline employment rate, the effect is statistically significant.
• Marginal Effects: The largest prize (€100,000) reduces the likelihood of working by approximately 4 percentage points in linear regression models. Allowing for non-linear effects, the €50,000 prize reduces employment rates by 1.5 percentage points, and the €100,000 prize reduces them by 3.5 percentage points (based on logit marginal effects).

2. Intensive Margin (Hours Worked)

The intensive margin measures changes in the number of hours worked per week by those who remain employed.

• Small Shocks (≤ €25,000): Small gains produce no impact on hours worked; the effects are flat for shocks up to €25,000.
• Large Shocks (€50,000 to €100,000): Gains above €50,000 lead to a reduction of approximately one hour of work per week. Specifically, the reduction is $-0.49$ hours for a €50,000 prize and $-0.72$ hours for a €100,000 prize. This reduction is modest, corresponding to about 1.4% and 2.1% of the average 35-hour workweek, respectively.

3. Job Search Effort (Non-Employed)

The methodology also examined the impact of windfalls on job search intensity among non-employed individuals.

• Effect of Size: Search intensity, defined as the intention to search more actively or start looking for work, declines as the prize size increases.
• Linear Estimate: Search intensity declines by roughly 1 percentage point for each €10,000 gain.
• Non-linear Estimate: The disincentive effect is statistically significant for the two largest prizes (€50,000 and €100,000), reducing search intensity by 8.6 and 10 percentage points, respectively. The reduction in search intensity is also seen in descriptive statistics, which show a 10 percentage point decline across the prize distribution (from 88% to 78%).

Heterogeneity in Labor Supply Reduction

The sources highlight significant differences in response magnitude across demographic and labor market groups.

• Gender: Women respond more strongly to windfall gains than men. At the extensive margin, for the €25,000 prize, female employment rates were 2.5 percentage points lower than men, and the effect of the €50,000 prize was significant at the 10% level. At the intensive margin, women show a larger reduction in hours worked compared to men.
• Age/Proximity to Retirement: Individuals nearing retirement (older workers) exhibit a stronger reduction in labor supply. For the largest shock, the decline in the employment rate was 4 percentage points higher for older workers than younger ones, though the difference was not statistically significant at the 5% level. Older individuals also showed a more pronounced response at the intensive margin. The strongest effects on job search intensity were observed among older individuals receiving €100,000.
• Employment Status: Part-time workers respond much more to the largest wealth shock than full-time workers, showing a differential reduction in the probability of exiting the labor force of 10 percentage points (significant at the 5% level). The self-employed, who typically have greater schedule flexibility, also show a more pronounced negative effect on hours worked for large prizes.
• Country Flexibility: In countries with more flexible labor markets (proxied by the prevalence of part-time employment, such as the Netherlands), the reduction in hours worked in response to windfalls is greater than in countries with more rigid labor markets (like Italy).

Contextualizing the Findings: Policy Implications

The finding that labor supply responses are negligible for smaller shocks, but economically meaningful for large ones, has crucial policy implications.

• Transfers and UBI: The results suggest that only relatively large wealth shocks generate economically sizable labor supply responses, while smaller transfers or bonuses, typically observed in policy settings, have minimal to no disincentive effects. This implies that UBI-style programs, given their typical scale, would have quite limited labor supply disincentives.
• Fiscal Stimulus: The sources suggest that the idea that stimulus packages are ineffective because they mainly finance leisure rather than spending can be dismissed, based on the limited labor supply response to smaller shocks.
• Inheritance/Wealth Taxes: Since the largest prizes (like €100,000) are intended to model events like unanticipated inheritances, the finding of a negative, but modest, labor supply reduction suggests that eliminating inheritance or wealth taxes would likely have only small effects on employment rates and hours worked for the typical employee.

Underlying Mechanism

The observed non-linear response (effects only kick in above €25,000) is consistent with economic theories involving labor market frictions and adjustment costs. These frictions inhibit behavioral changes unless the shock is large enough to overcome the cost of adjusting work schedules or job status. Alternatively, the non-linearity could reflect behavioral biases, such as bounded rationality or mental accounting.

---

The overall key finding is that the labor supply response is not a simple, constant reaction to wealth; rather, it acts like a door that only opens when the unearned income shock is large enough to overcome the "frictional threshold" of making a life-changing decision about work. Below this threshold (around €25,000), most workers simply absorb the shock without changing their labor status or hours, suggesting that smaller, frequent transfers have little negative effect on work effort.

The sources dedicate substantial attention to exploring the heterogeneity in labor supply responses to hypothetical windfall gains, leveraging substantial attention to exploring the heterogeneity in labor supply responses to hypothetical windfall gains, leveraging the large, representative sample and the randomized experimental design. The study's design allows researchers to explore how the causal impact of wealth shocks varies across demographic and labor market groups.

The key takeaway is that certain groups exhibit a significantly stronger negative labor supply response to the substantial windfall gains (€50,000 to €100,000) than others, consistent with differences in labor market constraints, preferences, or time horizons.

Here is a detailed discussion of the heterogeneity observed across various dimensions of the labor supply response:

1. Gender

Gender emerges as a significant source of heterogeneity across both the extensive and intensive margins of labor supply.

• Extensive Margin (Probability of Working): Women show a stronger reduction in the probability of continuing to work compared to men.
  • For prizes below €25,000, the response is not statistically different between genders.
  • For the €25,000 prize, female employment rates were 2.5 percentage points lower than those of males.
  • The effect of the €50,000 prize on women's employment was significant at the 10% level.
  • These findings align with existing literature suggesting that women generally exhibit larger labor supply elasticities in response to wealth shocks.
• Intensive Margin (Hours Worked): At the intensive margin, women also exhibit a greater reduction in hours worked.
  • For the €50,000 prize level, the estimated reduction in hours worked for women was $-0.78$ hours, compared to $-0.28$ hours for men.
  • Regression results confirmed that for prizes of €50,000 and above, the estimated marginal effects on hours worked were larger (in absolute value) for women.
• Effect on Earnings: When converting the response to estimated earnings reduction for the largest shock (€100,000), the drop was larger for females (2.701%) than for males (2.264%).
• Search Intensity (Non-Employed): Although not statistically significant in the main logit regression figures, sample split results for non-employed individuals show that for prizes of €50,000 and above, the effects on search intensity are larger (in absolute value) for females than for males.

2. Age and Proximity to Retirement

The study found a pronounced negative labor supply response among older workers, which is attributed to their shorter time horizon for smoothing the income shock.

• Extensive Margin: Individuals nearing retirement (older workers) are more responsive to windfall gains.
  • For the largest wealth shock (€100,000), the decline in the employment rate was 4 percentage points higher for older workers (over 40 years old) than for younger workers (40 or younger), supporting the idea that workers closer to retirement are more responsive to economic incentives.
• Intensive Margin: Older workers also show a more pronounced response to larger prize shocks than younger workers.
  • At the €100,000 prize, older workers reduced hours by $-0.8422$ compared to $-0.5308$ hours for younger workers.
• Search Intensity: The strongest negative effects on job search intensity were observed among older individuals receiving the largest windfall (€100,000).
  • Older workers (over 40) reduced search intensity more than younger individuals in response to large prizes (€50,000 and above).
• Lifetime MPE Context: While older workers have a higher immediate earnings response, the sources note that their shorter remaining working life offsets this effect. Once differences in time horizons are accounted for, the implied lifetime MPE (Marginal Propensity to Earn) out of lifetime income is quite similar across age groups (0.137 for older versus 0.128 for young individuals for a €10,000 windfall).

3. Employment Status and Flexibility

The type of employment and the degree of labor market flexibility also influence the response magnitude.

• Part-time vs. Full-time: Part-time workers (defined as those working less than 20 hours per week) respond much more strongly to the largest wealth shock than full-time workers.
  • Part-time workers show a differential reduction in the probability of exiting the labor force of 10 percentage points compared to full-time workers (significant at the 5% level).
• Self-Employed vs. Employed: The self-employed, who typically have greater flexibility in their work schedules, show a more pronounced negative effect on hours worked for large prizes.
  • At the €100,000 prize level, the estimated reduction in hours was $-1.1$ for the self-employed, compared to $-0.6$ for employees.
• Country Flexibility: In countries characterized by more flexible labor markets (as proxied by the prevalence of part-time employment, such as the Netherlands), the reduction in hours worked in response to windfall gains is greater than in countries with more rigid labor markets (like Italy).
  • For example, the reduction in weekly hours was $-1.5$ in the Netherlands compared to $-0.5$ in Italy.

4. Financial Status and Education

Other financial and demographic characteristics showed less variation in responses:

• Indebtedness: Workers with low debt (Debt/Income ratio below one) reported a 5 percentage points higher probability of exiting the labor force in response to the largest prize compared to their highly indebted counterparts.
• Income and Education: The sources found no significant differences in the intention to continue working or the change in hours based on income level or college education.
• Financial Sophistication and Household Type: The study also found no difference in responses based on measures of financial sophistication or whether the respondent was single versus part of a different household type (e.g., single individuals without children).

In the overall context of the Labor Supply Response to Windfall Gains (Survey Experiment), the heterogeneity findings underscore the argument that labor market frictions and adjustment costs prevent small shocks from altering behavior, while large shocks trigger significant responses, particularly among groups who already possess higher labor supply elasticities (women) or face shorter time constraints (older workers/part-time workers).

The sources draw several critical policy implications and conclusions from the study's key finding: that **labor supply several critical policy implications and conclusions from the study's key finding: that labor supply responses to windfall gains are non-linear and only become economically sizable when the gains are substantial. This finding is consistent with the presence of labor market frictions or behavioral biases that inhibit changes unless the shock is large enough.

In the larger context of the Labor Supply Response to Windfall Gains (Survey Experiment), these conclusions address long-standing policy debates regarding the effectiveness of transfer programs, fiscal stimulus, and wealth taxation.

Policy Implications for Transfer Programs and Stimulus

The study’s results strongly suggest that common, smaller government transfers have minimal disincentive effects on labor supply, offering support for such interventions:

• Universal Basic Income (UBI) Programs: The results imply that only relatively large wealth shocks trigger economically meaningful labor supply responses. Since the hypothetical shocks within the range of typical transfers or bonuses result in small or negligible disincentive effects on labor supply, the sources conclude that UBI-style programs, given the scale at which they are currently discussed, would likely have quite limited labor supply disincentives effects overall. This addresses the common criticism that transfer programs may discourage work or job search.
• Fiscal Stimulus and Transfers (COVID-19/Energy Crisis): The research findings are relevant for evaluating recent fiscal interventions, such as the one-time bonuses and transfers introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis. The modest labor supply response to smaller shocks suggests that the argument that stimulus packages are ineffective because they mainly finance leisure rather than consumption can be dismissed. Weakened aggregate demand effects of fiscal stimulus due to individuals consuming more leisure and earning less is a concern that the study's findings alleviate for typical transfer sizes.
• Threshold of Response: The critical finding is that gains of €25,000 or less have no statistically significant effects on the extensive margin (probability of working) or the intensive margin (hours worked). This highlights a "threshold" effect where the negative income effect only activates for large shocks (€50,000 to €100,000).

Policy Implications for Wealth and Inheritance Taxation

The study also provides empirical context for the design of policies that directly affect wealth, such as the taxation of inheritances or the implementation of wealth taxes. The largest prizes (€50,000 to €100,000) in the experiment are intended to model large, infrequent shocks like bequests or gifts.

• Modest Effects of Large Shocks: The sources find that even for the largest hypothetical shocks (unanticipated inheritances), the labor supply reduction is negative but ultimately modest.
  • For the largest gains (€50,000 to €100,000), the probability of working is reduced by 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points.
  • Hours worked reduction is about one hour per week.
• Carnegie Conjecture and Tax Elimination: The taxation of inheritances is often debated based on principles of equity and efficiency, related to the "Carnegie conjecture" that taxing inheritances reduces inequality but may increase inefficiency by reducing work effort. Since the labor supply responses to these large prizes are found to be statistically significant but modest, the sources conclude that eliminating inheritance or wealth taxes would likely have only small effects on employment rates and hours worked for the typical employee.

Conclusions and Contribution to Literature

The study concludes that its novel approach—a large-scale, population-representative survey experiment with randomized shock size—successfully estimates the causal effect of wealth shocks on three dimensions of labor supply (extensive margin, intensive margin, and job search intensity).

• Non-Linearity Mechanism: The non-linear labor supply response is the crucial finding, attributed to the presence of labor market frictions and adjustment costs (or, alternatively, behavioral biases like bounded rationality or mental accounting). This non-linearity is a key distinction from standard labor supply theory, which suggests the response should be independent of shock size.
• Heterogeneity: The findings demonstrate that responses are stronger for certain groups, particularly women and individuals nearing retirement, supporting the idea that these groups have greater labor supply elasticities or shorter horizons over which to smooth the shock.
• Comparison to Existing Literature: The study’s estimate of the implied lifetime Marginal Propensity to Earn (MPE) for a $10,000 windfall ($-0.19$) falls in the ballpark of estimates from studies using actual lottery data in Sweden and the U.S. (e.g., Cesarini et al., 2017, estimated $-0.18$). However, the study notes that its estimate for the largest shock (€100,000) yields a higher MPE ($-0.52$), which closely matches estimates from studies focused on very large lottery prizes, indicating that the non-linear response identified is consistent with real-world observed behavior.

Areas for Future Research

The sources also suggest several avenues for extending this research design:

• Asymmetric Effects: Testing for asymmetric labor supply effects by eliciting responses to hypothetical negative wealth shocks (e.g., stock market downturns, wealth taxes, housing crashes).
• Spillover Effects: Exploring the role of intra-household spillover effects (e.g., spouses adjusting labor supply) and the distinction between before- and after-tax wealth changes.
• General Equilibrium: Recognizing that the current estimates are likely an upper bound of the true effects because they do not capture positive labor demand effects that occur when windfall gains are spent (general equilibrium effects).
•