Search

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the implication of the decision to give 2006 Census respondents the option of letting Statistics Canada access their income tax files rather than answering income-related questions directly. We find that giving respondents the option to share their income tax files (or not) adds a confounding factor when it comes to measuring family-income inequality, particularly for the bottom tail of the distribution. The consent decision does not, however, materially affect the estimation of standard wage equations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transferring income to families with children has long been a basic Canadian social policy. Though motivated by a range of goals, a central expectation has been that higher family income will lead to better child outcomes, especially in low-income families. This paper presents a synthesis of Canadian research estimating the effect of household income on measures of child development and well-being. While child outcomes and socioeconomic status (SES) are highly correlated, the effect of income on child outcomes, controlling for other SES factors, is found to be statistically significant but of much smaller magnitude than correlation alone indicates. The paper also discusses key theoretical and methodological issues in this area of research, identifies areas for future research, and draws implications for public policy design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

For a decade or so starting in the early 1990s, Canada's major income support programs underwent substantial reform. Meanwhile, the economy first lingered in a deep recession and then recovered with a period of strong growth. This paper focuses on how the distributional impact of Employment Insurance (EI) evolved during this period. We find that EI was strongly redistributive throughout the whole period with respect to the earnings of individuals, and somewhat less so for family income. But we also show that the distribution of benefits and contributions changed substantially over time, becoming less redistributive. Somewhat counter-intuitively, both the benefit and contribution sides of the program are shown to be redistributive, even though the contribution structure is regressive. These findings are relevant in the current context, as the economy struggles with a combination of high unemployment and fiscal pressures on government spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Residents of Ontario aged 65 years and older are covered by a provincially funded prescription drug program. The aim of this paper is to assess the extent of inequity in prescription drug use for people eligible for Ontario Drug Benefit coverage, and to explore the different possible explanations for inequities. The analyses draw on the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2005, which is linked to pharmacy and Ontario Health Insurance Plan claims data. We model the number of therapeutically different prescription drugs and the total expenditures on medications on a set of health, demographic, and socioeconomic indicators, and we calculate the concentration index of income-related inequality in medicine use. The results show that low-income individuals who have enrolled in the reduced cost-sharing program on average use more medications than those with higher income, even after adjusting for a comprehensive set of health and demographic variables. While Ontario's public drug program appears to have ensured access to medications for low-income seniors, the results of this study raise concerns about the potential inappropriateness of medication use and point to a gap in drug policy in Ontario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Demographic change and policy reorientation are often conflated with economic and social changes in anticipating the social and policy implications of demographic aging. In this paper, an attempt is made to begin to disentangle these factors to gain a clearer sense of the implications of population aging for social and policy responses. Analyzed here are selected socio-economic changes that intervene in the connection of demographic aging to policy, such as actual working patterns by age, education to work timing, retirement patterns, productivity shifts, pension investment shifts, policy changes such as the move toward economic liberalism and away from redistribution and social protection, changing family patterns, and shifts among generations in terms of wealth inequality. These are related to shifts in demographic age structures. Data which are more illustrative than the analytical focus of the paper, come largely from various Statistics Canada sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we re-examine inequality in Canada with a comprehensive look at inequality trends in Atlantic Canada during the period 1969 to 1996. We use consumption expenditure as a measure of family well-being and compare it with the income-based measures of well-being. The results of this study reveal the following: (a) consumption distribution is more equal than the income distribution; (b) inequality trends are sensitive to how family resources are measured; (c) consumption inequality in Atlantic Canada fluctuated considerably until the mid-1980s; and (d) tax and transfer policies have played an important role in reducing income disparities in Atlantic Canada as well as in the rest of Canada. Overall, consumption inequality has continually been lower in Atlantic Canada in comparison to the rest of Canada. The paper also examines the role of key socio-demographic factors using a decomposition methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Self-reported life satisfaction is increasingly measured in government and private surveys around the world. In Canada, life satisfaction questions have not been asked in a consistent manner over time, but the accumulated set of data since 1985, along with recent surveys with repeated structure, now facilitates an analysis of regional changes. Those two and a half decades reveal a significant increase in life satisfaction in the province of Quebec as compared with the rest of Canada. The scale of this increase in well-being is comparable to the imputed effect of more than a trebling of mean household income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the substantial changes in tax and transfer programs and the movements in after-tax income inequality over the 1980s and 1990s. We show that in the 1980s, tax and transfer programs became more redistributive, offsetting substantial increases in market income inequality. In the 1990s, the tax and transfer system stopped undoing the increases in market income inequality, leading after-tax income inequality to rise. Even so, tax and transfer programs were more redistributive in 2000 than in the 1980s. Much of the changes occurred at the provincial level, with social assistance payments first increasing (in the late 1980s) then decreasing (in the late 1990s) and with surtaxes on high-income earners being first imposed and subsequently removed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at changes in hourly wages and hours worked per week of prime-age males in different skill groups (measured by earnings quintile) in the United States and Canada from 1981 to 1997. The analysis reveals that increases in hourly wage inequality are primarily responsible for increases in weekly earnings inequality in both countries. Increases in the dispersion of hours worked per week play a more important part in explaining the increase in earnings inequality in Canada than in the United States. High-skill workers experienced increases in earnings growth due to increases in hours and, at least for the US, increases in wages. In contrast, low-skill workers experienced declines in earnings growth due to decreases in wages and hours. This evidence is consistent with a skill-biased demand shock. In Canada a larger percentage of the reduction in earnings of low-skill workers is accounted for by declining hours. This evidence suggests a higher degree of downward wage rigidity in Canada than in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper attempts to clarify what trade-offs might exist between equity and growth. It is found that (i) there is not enough evidence to state definitively that inequality is either good or bad for growth, although the results cannot be taken so confidently as to rule out completely any effect; and (ii) increased social protection expenditure is bad for growth; although (iii) active social spending programs, which are designed to encourage increased employment activity by the beneficiaries, are good for growth while passive programs are bad for growth. However, since voters want both equity and growth the policy conclusion is not to cut social expenditures to boost growth but rather to shift the focus from passive to active programs. This is also supported by a different interpretation of the results, that cutting transfers encourages entry into the labour market, both increasing growth and narrowing the income distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent body of empirical cross-country research has confirmed that income inequality is negatively related to economic growth. This paper provides an explanatory channel for this observed relationship. The novelty of our approach consists in the use of demographic channels to account for cross-country differentials in economic growth and income distribution. We present four models that have emerged as the most plausible transmission mechanisms linking inequality to slower growth. In each instance we demonstrate how a consideration of demographic age structure can complement the four mainstream accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Public Policy is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Using Canadian Election Study data, we explore the relationship between income inequality and popular support for redistribution in Canada between 1993 and 2008. We demonstrate that the relationship between inequality and attitudes toward redistribution tends to be positive within provinces but negative across them. We argue that two markedly different mechanisms explain this discrepancy. First, within any particular political and economic context, people are more likely to benefit from redistribution, and hence support it, when inequality is high. Second, both inequality and attitudes toward redistribution are affected by characteristics unique to provincial political cultures, which results in attitudes toward redistribution having a different baseline depending on the province. We end with a discussion of the policy implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article studies the impact of a non-refundable tax credit for public transit introduced in July 2006 in Canada. I find no evidence that this tax credit increased the number of trips made using public transit. There is, however, some suggestive evidence that it did induce commuters to purchase monthly passes. Finally, the article discusses the distributional effect of this tax credit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We draw attention to, and begin to consider the implications of, the severe restrictions on emigration by Canadians to the United States introduced under the US Immigration Act of 1965. These restrictions came into effect in 1968 and lasted until mobility began to increase to some extent under the free trade agreements in the early 1990s. This is an unusual episode in Canadian history, the implications of which for the Canadian economy and for Canadian public policy appear to have received little attention. We assemble evidence that suggests that the near closing of the border led toward uncoupling of Canadian and US labour markets and to a decrease in the elasticity of labour supply in Canada. Implications for Canadian fiscal policy of a decline in labour elasticity are then derived using a model of equilibrium fiscal structure. We show that these predictions, including heavier taxation of labour income and an increase in the overall size of the public sector, are consistent with what occurred over the two decades after the near closing of the US border, as well as with the partial reopening following the free trade agreements. The analysis continues by acknowledging additional factors that determine the structure and size of the public sector, and by considering the near closing of the border in a broader historical context. We conclude with a prediction about the future course of Canada-US migration policy that follows from our analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We construct a new time series on the Canadian female/male pay ratio. The new series is based on wage data rather than the earnings data that have been used in the past. Wages more closely correspond to the price of labour, while earnings combine information on the price of labour with information on decisions of how much to work. Our results reveal significant differences between the wage- and earnings-based series. Most importantly, the wage series reveals that women have continued to make progress over the last 15 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]