You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies?
Matias Eklöf and Hans Sacklén
The Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 204-220
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/146361
Page Count: 17
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Datasets, Wage rate, Estimated taxes, Income estimates, Labor supply, Statistical estimation, Coefficients, Net income, Human resources, Wages
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
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.
The Journal of Human Resources © 2000 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System