The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies?
The Journal of Human Resources2000Vol. 35(1), pp. 204–204
Citations Over Time
Abstract
The two perhaps most influential empirical labor supply studies carried out in the United States in recent years, Hausman (1981) and MaCurdy, Green, and Paarsch (1990), report sharply contradicting labor supply estimates. In this paper we show that the seemingly irreconcilable views on the size of work disincentive effects and welfare losses can be attributed to the use of differing nonlabor income and wage measures in the two studies. Monte Carlo experiments suggest that the wage measure adopted by MaCurdy, Green, and Paarsch (1990) might cause a severely downward biased wage effect such that data falsely refute the basic notion of utility maximization.
Related Papers
- → An econometric estimation of the aggregate import demand function for Bangladesh: some further results(2004)24 cited
- → A Hausman-type test to detect the presence of influential outliers in regression analysis(2009)11 cited
- Stock Price and Industrial Production in Developing Countries: A Dynamic Heterogeneous Panel Analysis(2013)
- Econometric estimation of second-hand shipping markets using panel data analysis(2017)
- → Determinants of the spread of bank interests in Bangladesh(2017)