中文摘要
我研究非劳动参与者、失业者和就业者之间的再分配，这些主体在偏好以及在劳动力市场和家庭中的生产技能方面存在异质性。政府认为，跨技能的再分配是可取的，而跨偏好的再分配则并非如此：如果所有人的偏好相同，平等是最优的；但如果所有人的技能相同，自由放任是最优的。由此可以得到一个用于评估任何改革的简单充分统计量：每增加一美元转移支付，都应给予其消费水平低于假设所有人均拥有平均技能时本应消费水平差距最大的主体。在高收入国家，实证上，劳动力市场中最低消费与平均产出之间的差距远大于非劳动参与者群体内部的这一差距。因此，无论劳动供给弹性如何，对于该社会福利函数而言，引入非劳动参与补助或基本收入既不能改善福利，也不是最优选择。
Abstract
I study redistribution between inactive, unemployed, and employed agents who are heterogeneous in their preferences and their productive skills in the labor market and at home. The government considers that redistribution across skills is desirable, but redistribution across preferences is not: if everyone has the same preferences, equality is optimal, but if everyone has the same skills, laissez-faire is optimal. In turn, this leads to a simple sufficient statistic to assess any reform: any extra dollar of transfer should go to the agent whose consumption is the furthest below what she would have consumed if everyone had average skills. In high-income countries, the gap between the lowest consumption and the average production is empirically much larger in the labor market than among inactives. Hence, introducing an inactivity benefit, or basic income, would neither be welfare-improving nor optimal for that social welfare function, regardless of labor supply elasticities.