跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确使用实地实验,并研究亲属和社会网络的再分配压力及账户信息公开性对劳动行为的影响。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Eliana Carranza
Aletheia Donald
Supreet Kaur

社会税:再分配压力与劳动供给

研究问题
亲属及社会网络中的收入分享压力是否抑制劳动供给,允许劳动者隐匿新增收入能否提高出勤与收入,并保留对外转移?
方法与思路
作者在科特迪瓦计件工人中开展九个月实地实验,提供仅能存入相对基线新增收入的锁定账户,并以补充实验比较账户私密与公开。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称提供私密账户提高出勤和收入,效应集中于基线再分配压力较大的工人;补充实验支持私密性机制,且未发现对外转移下降。
阅读关注点
应核对实验分配、账户存款限制及其减弱收入效应的依据,区分账户提供与实际使用效应,并检查网络公开性实验的机制解释。
阅读边界
仅依据所给 Crossref 摘要;补充实验被作者定位为提示性机制证据,不能由转移未下降进一步推断完整福利变化或普遍适用性。

原文摘要

In low‐income communities in both rich and poor countries, redistributive transfers within kin and social networks are frequent. Such arrangements may distort labor supply—acting as a “social tax” that dampens the incentive to work. We document that across countries, from the United States to Côte d'Ivoire, low‐income groups report strong pressure to share earned income with others; in addition, social groups that undertake more interpersonal transfers work fewer hours. Using a field experiment, we enable piece‐rate factory workers in Côte d'Ivoire to shield income using blocked savings accounts over 9 months. Workers may only deposit earnings increases, relative to baseline, mitigating income effects on labor supply. Offering Private accounts raises work attendance by 6.5% and earnings by 9.4%. These treatment effects are concentrated among workers who report higher redistributive pressure at baseline. To obtain further suggestive evidence on mechanisms, in a supplementary experiment, we vary whether blocked accounts are private or known to the worker's network. When accounts are private, take‐up is substantively higher (60% vs. 14%), with a resultant 8.8% higher earnings. Outgoing transfers do not decline, indicating no loss in redistribution. The welfare benefits of informal redistribution may come at a cost, depressing labor supply and productivity.

笔记与分组