The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies?
AbstractThe 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Journal of Human Resources.
Volume (Year): 35 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://jhr.uwpress.org/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Grodner, Andrew & Kniesner, Thomas J., 2007.
"Labor Supply with Social Interactions: Econometric Estimates and Their Tax Policy Implications,"
IZA Discussion Papers
3034, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Andrew Grodner & Thomas Kniesner, 2005. "Labor Supply with Social Interactions: Econometric Estimates and Their Tax Policy Implications," Center for Policy Research Working Papers 69, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
- Michael Keane, 2010.
"Labor Supply and Taxes: A Survey,"
Working Paper Series
160, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.