Free to choose? Differences in the hours determination of constrained and unconstrained workers
Mark Bryan ()
Oxford Economic Papers, 2007, vol. 59, issue 2, pages 226-252
In surveys, large minorities of individuals typically report that they would like to change their weekly working hours at their current hourly wage. If this evidence reflects genuine constraints on choice of hours, the determinants of hours should differ between constrained and unconstrained groups. Controlling for selection by an extension of the Heckman two-step method to ordered selection and panel data, and using a sample of manual men, I find that unconstrained workers' hours are determined differently from those of constrained workers. I present evidence that local labour market conditions affect the hours of constrained but not of unconstrained workers. I also correct for the potential bias resulting from the use of observed hours to derive the hourly wage, by instrumenting it with its lagged value. The combination of ignoring hours constraints and assuming the derived hourly wage is exogenous imparts a downward bias to wage elasticity estimates. Copyright 2007 , Oxford University Press.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (9) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
Working Paper: Free to choose? Differences in the hours determination of constrained and unconstrained workers (2002)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:59:y:2007:i:2:p:226-252
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Oxford Economic Papers is currently edited by A. Banerjee and James Forder
More articles in Oxford Economic Papers from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Series data maintained by Oxford University Press ().