IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

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

Listed author(s):
  • Matias Eklöf
  • Hans Sacklén
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    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 look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Journal of Human Resources.

    Volume (Year): 35 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 204-220

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:35:y:2000:i:1:p:204-220
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

    1. The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy: Why Do the Results Differ across Studies? (JHR 2000) in ReplicationWiki

    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.

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.