IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/jhriss/v35y2000i1p204-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies?

Author

Listed:
  • Matias Eklöf
  • Hans Sacklén

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Matias Eklöf & Hans Sacklén, 2000. "The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 35(1), pages 204-220.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:35:y:2000:i:1:p:204-220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/146361
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Masayoshi Hayashi, 2021. "Transfer Benefits, Implicit Taxes, and the Earnings of Welfare Recipients: Evidence from Public Assistance Programs in Japan," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1164, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    2. Anil Kumar, 2016. "Lifecycle-consistent female labor supply with nonlinear taxes: evidence from unobserved effects panel data models with censoring, selection and endogeneity," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 207-229, March.
    3. Michael P. Keane, 2011. "Labor Supply and Taxes: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(4), pages 961-1075, December.
    4. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2012. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US: New Results," Working Papers halshs-00805736, HAL.
    5. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.
    6. Sören Blomquist & Whitney K. Newey & Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang, 2021. "On Bunching and Identification of the Taxable Income Elasticity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(8), pages 2320-2343.
    7. Andrew Grodner & Thomas J. Kniesner, 2008. "Labor supply with social interactions: econometric estimates and their tax policy implications," Research in Labor Economics, in: Work, Earnings and Other Aspects of the Employment Relation, pages 1-23, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    8. Sören Blomquist & Whitney K. Newey, 2017. "The Bunching Estimator Cannot Identify the Taxable Income Elasticity," CESifo Working Paper Series 6736, CESifo.
    9. Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang, 2015. "Declining female labor supply elasticities in the U.S. and implications for tax policy: evidence from panel data," Working Papers 1501, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    10. Kelly Bishop & Bradley Heim & Kata Mihaly, 2009. "Single Women's Labor Supply Elasticities: Trends and Policy Implications," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 63(1), pages 146-168, October.
    11. Soren Blomquist & Whitney K. Newey, 2017. "The bunching estimator cannot identify the taxable income elasticity," CeMMAP working papers 40/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Maximilian Joseph Blömer & Andreas Peichl, 2020. "The ifo Tax and Transfer Behavioral Microsimulation Model," ifo Working Paper Series 335, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

    More about this item

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies? (JHR 2000) in ReplicationWiki

    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:uwp:jhriss:v:35:y:2000:i:1:p:204-220. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jhr.uwpress.org/ .

    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.