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

Matias Eklöf and Hans Sacklén

Journal of Human Resources, 2000, vol. 35, issue 1, 204-220

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.

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/146361
A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:35:y:2000:i:1:p:204-220

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Human Resources from University of Wisconsin Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().