IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/udc/wpaper/wp518.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effect of pretrial detention on labor market outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Grau
  • Gonzalo Marivil
  • Jorge Rivera

Abstract

We combine Chilean individual administrative data for criminal cases and labor market outcomes to estimate the effect of pretrial detention on labor outcomes using the Difference-in-differences (DiD) method and an instrumental variables (IV) approach. The IV approach takes advantage of the quasi-random assignment of judges. The IV results show that pretrial detention reduces the probability of having formal employment and the average monthly wage by 39% and 56% during the six months following the final trial verdict. DiD estimation delivers estimates that are between one-third and one-half smaller. The magnitudes of the effects shown continue to be relevant as much as 24 months after the final trial verdict. The results of our analysis suggest that the negative effect of pretrial detention is (at least) driven by the lasting effect of being excluded from the labor market during the trial, the accompanying social stigma, and the impact of pretrial detention on the probability of post-verdict incarceration.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Grau & Gonzalo Marivil & Jorge Rivera, 2021. "The effect of pretrial detention on labor market outcomes," Working Papers wp518, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:udc:wpaper:wp518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ.uchile.cl/es/publicacion/The-effect-of-pretrial-detention-on-labor-market-outcomes-2
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Devah Pager, 2003. "The mark of a criminal record," Natural Field Experiments 00319, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Michal Kolesár & Raj Chetty & John Friedman & Edward Glaeser & Guido W. Imbens, 2015. "Identification and Inference With Many Invalid Instruments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 474-484, October.
    3. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    4. Esther Duflo, 2001. "Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 795-813, September.
    5. Will Dobbie & Jacob Goldin & Crystal S. Yang, 2018. "The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 201-240, February.
    6. Rafael Di Tella & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2013. "Criminal Recidivism after Prison and Electronic Monitoring," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 28-73.
    7. Rasmus Landersø, 2015. "Does Incarceration Length Affect Labor Market Outcomes?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 205-234.
    8. Jeffrey Grogger, 1995. "The Effect of Arrests on the Employment and Earnings of Young Men," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 51-71.
    9. Nagin, Daniel & Waldfogel, Joel, 1995. "The effects of criminality and conviction on the labor market status of young British offenders," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 109-126, January.
    10. Anna Aizer & Joseph J. Doyle, 2015. "Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital, and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(2), pages 759-803.
    11. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
    12. Tomás Cortés & Nicolás Grau & Jorge Rivera, 2019. "Juvenile Incarceration and Adult Recidivism," Working Papers wp482, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    13. Emily Leslie & Nolan G. Pope, 2017. "The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Arraignments," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 529-557.
    14. Matthew Knepper, 2018. "When the Shadow Is the Substance: Judge Gender and the Outcomes of Workplace Sex Discrimination Cases," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(3), pages 623-664.
    15. Keith Finlay, 2009. "Effect of Employer Access to Criminal History Data on the Labor Market Outcomes of Ex-Offenders and Non-Offenders," NBER Chapters, in: Studies of Labor Market Intermediation, pages 89-125, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2006. "Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 863-876, June.
    17. Bryan Engelhardt, 2010. "The Effect of Employment Frictions on Crime," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(3), pages 677-718, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patricio Dom'inguez & Nicol'as Grau & Dami'an Vergara, 2022. "Discrimination Against Immigrants in the Criminal Justice System: Evidence from Pretrial Detentions," Papers 2202.10685, arXiv.org.
    2. Nicolás Grau & Damián Vergara, "undated". "A Simple Test for Prejudice in Decision Processes: The Prediction-Based Outcome Test," Working Papers wp493, University of Chile, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tomás Cortés & Nicolás Grau & Jorge Rivera, 2019. "Juvenile Incarceration and Adult Recidivism," Working Papers wp482, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    2. Manudeep Bhuller & Gordon B. Dahl & Katrine V. Løken & Magne Mogstad, 2020. "Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1269-1324.
    3. William Arbour & Steeve Marchand, 2022. "Parole, Recidivism, and the Role of Supervised Transition," Working Papers tecipa-725, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    4. Joseph J. Sabia & Taylor Mackay & Thanh Tam Nguyen & Dhaval M. Dave, 2018. "Do Ban the Box Laws Increase Crime?," NBER Working Papers 24381, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Bastien Michel & Camille Hémet, 2022. "Custodial versus non-custodial sentences: Long-run evidence from an anticipated reform," PSE Working Papers halshs-03899897, HAL.
    6. Brigham Frandsen & Lars Lefgren & Emily Leslie, 2023. "Judging Judge Fixed Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 253-277, January.
    7. Anna Aizer & Joseph J. Doyle, 2015. "Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital, and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(2), pages 759-803.
    8. Megan T Stevenson, 2018. "Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 511-542.
    9. Anaïs Henneguelle & Benjamin Monnery & Annie Kensey, 2016. "Better at Home than in Prison? The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Recidivism in France," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 629-667.
    10. Briggs Depew & Ozkan Eren & Naci Mocan, 2017. "Judges, Juveniles, and In-Group Bias," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 209-239.
    11. Christian Dippel & Dustin Frye & Bryan Leonard, 2020. "Property Rights without Transfer Rights: A Study of Indian Land Allotment," NBER Working Papers 27479, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Sofia Amaral & Gordon B. Dahl & Victoria Endl-Geyer & Timo Hener & Helmut Rainer, 2023. "Deterrence or Backlash? Arrests and the Dynamics of Domestic Violence," NBER Working Papers 30855, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Jenny Williams & Don Weatherburn, 2022. "Can Electronic Monitoring Reduce Reoffending?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(2), pages 232-245, May.
    14. Richey, Jeremiah, 2015. "Shackled labor markets: Bounding the causal effects of criminal convictions in the U.S," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 17-24.
    15. Christian Dippel & Michael Poyker, 2023. "Do Private Prisons Affect Criminal Sentencing?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(3), pages 511-534.
    16. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2006. "Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 863-876, June.
    17. Meier, Armando N. & Levav, Jonathan & Meier, Stephan, 2020. "Early Release and Recidivism," IZA Discussion Papers 13035, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Jon Kleinberg & Himabindu Lakkaraju & Jure Leskovec & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2018. "Human Decisions and Machine Predictions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 237-293.
    19. Darolia, Rajeev & Mueser, Peter & Cronin, Jacob, 2021. "Labor market returns to a prison GED," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    20. Keith Finlay, 2009. "Effect of Employer Access to Criminal History Data on the Labor Market Outcomes of Ex-Offenders and Non-Offenders," NBER Chapters, in: Studies of Labor Market Intermediation, pages 89-125, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:udc:wpaper:wp518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mohit Karnani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuclcl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.