IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/17-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Recalculating - How Uncertainty in Local Labor Market Definitions Affects Empirical Findings

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Foote
  • Mark J. Kutzbach
  • Lars Vilhuber

Abstract

This paper evaluates the use of commuting zones as a local labor market definition. We revisit Tolbert and Sizer (1996) and demonstrate the sensitivity of definitions to two features of the methodology. We show how these features impact empirical estimates using a well-known application of commuting zones. We conclude with advice to researchers using commuting zones on how to demonstrate the robustness of empirical findings to uncertainty in definitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Foote & Mark J. Kutzbach & Lars Vilhuber, 2017. "Recalculating - How Uncertainty in Local Labor Market Definitions Affects Empirical Findings," Working Papers 17-49, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:17-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2017/CES-WP-17-49.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abigail Wozniak, 2010. "Are College Graduates More Responsive to Distant Labor Market Opportunities?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 45(4), pages 944-970.
    2. Tolbert, Charles M., II & Killian, Molly Sizer, 1987. "Labor Market Areas for the United States," Staff Reports 277959, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Ben Lipsius, 2018. "Labor Market Concentration does not Explain the Falling Labor Share," 2018 Papers pli1202, Job Market Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Local labor markets; commuting; measurement error;

    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:cen:wpaper:17-49. 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: (Dawn Anderson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.