Working Paper Series,
Uppsala University, Department of Economics

Abstract: The two perhaps most influential empirical labor supply studies carried out in the U.S. in recent years, Hausman (1981) and MaCurdy, Green & Paarsch (1990), report sharply contradicting labor supply estimates. In this paper we seek to uncover the driving forces behind the seemingly irreconcilable results. Our findings suggest that differences with respect to the estimated income and wage effects can be attributed to the use of differing nonlabor income and wage measures, respectively, in the two studies. Monte Carlo experiments suggest that the wage measure adopted by MaCurdy et al might cause a severely downward biased wage effect such that data falsely refute the basic notion of utility maximization.

Keywords: Labor supply; Slutsky condition; maximum likelihood estimation

JEL-codes: J22

42 pages, December 4, 1997

Full text files

1997wp30.pdf  

Download statistics

Published as

Matias Eklöf and Hans Sacklén, (2000), 'The Hausman-MaCurdy Controversy - Why do results differ between studies?', Journal of Human Resources, vol 35, no 1, pages 204-220

• Uppsala University, Department of Economics
• Home page for this series

Questions (including download problems) about the papers in this series should be directed to Ulrika Öjdeby ()
Report other problems with accessing this service to Sune Karlsson ().

RePEc:hhs:uunewp:1997_030This page generated on 2024-09-13 22:17:36.