Ecuaciones de Mincer de parejas bajo un esquema de selección muestral bivariada. Una aplicación al caso Argentino

Javier Alejo; Victor Funes

doi:10.4067/S0718-88702021000100003

Authors

Javier Alejo Instituto de Economía (Iecon), Universidad de la República (UdelaR)
Victor Funes ACES - University of Illinois

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-88702021000100003

Keywords:

Wages, joint labor decisions, selection bias, Heckman’s method

Abstract

This working paper explores the effect of joint labor decisions on the study of wage regression models. The estimation of Mincer equations suffers from numerous sources of bias, including the sample selection problem generated by the fact that agents’ decision to work is not independent of their wage levels. Most of the papers correct for this bias using a model of individual labor participation. However, recent trends in the labor market show greater participation of women in the labor force and seem to indicate that the joint decision of the spouses is increasingly relevant in determining the selection mechanism. A bivariate version of Heckman’s method appears as an interesting alternative to solve this problem. Although the estimates are in line with the previous literature, the results indicate that the joint decision of the couple is a relevant factor in the selection bias.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press.

Blundell, R., Chiappori, P. A., Magnac, T., & Meghir, C. (2007). Collective labour supply: Heterogeneity and non-participation. Review of Economic Studies, 74(2), 417–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00440.x

Blundell, R., Duncan, A., & Meghir, C. (1998). Estimating labor supply responses using tax reforms. Econometrica, 66(4), 827–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2999575

Blundell, R., & MaCurdy, T. (1999). Labor supply: A review of alternative approaches. In O. C. Ashenfelter & D. E. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1559–1695). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1573-4463(99)03008-4

Chiappori, P. A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56(1), 63–90.

Chiappori, P. A. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100(3), 437–467. https://doi.org/10.1086/261825

Chiappori, P. A., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2002). Marriage market, divorce legislation, and household labor supply. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/324385

Chioda, L. (2016). Work and family: Latin American and Caribbean women in search of a new balance (Latin American Development Forum Series). World Bank Group.

De Luca, G. (2008). SNP and SML estimation of univariate and bivariate binary-choice models. The Stata Journal, 8(2), 190–220.

Gasparini, L., Marchionni, M., Badaracco, N., & Serrano, J. (2015). Female labor force participation in Latin America: Evidence of deceleration (Documento de Trabajo N.º 181). Centro de Estudios Distributivos, Laborales y Sociales.

Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.

Poirier, D. J. (1980). Partial observability in bivariate probit models. Journal of Econometrics, 12(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(80)90007-x

Ransom, M. R. (1987). An empirical model of discrete and continuous choice in family labor supply. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(3), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925534

Tauchmann, H. (2010). Consistency of Heckman-type two-step estimators for the multivariate sample-selection model. Applied Economics, 42(30), 3895–3902.

Van Klaveren, C., Van Praag, B., & Maassen van der Brink, H. (2008). A public good version of the collective household model: An empirical approach with an application to British household data. Review of Economics of the Household, 6(2), 169–191.