Comment

C. Pissarides
{"title":"Comment","authors":"C. Pissarides","doi":"10.1086/596014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much effort in modern labor economics is devoted to finding “natural experiments,” which can be peculiarities in legislation that give rise to different treatments of otherwise similar subjects. When the interest is labor market policy, in Europe usually the unit of analysis is the nation. Countries are small and policies are national, but there are still significant policy differences across countries. Cross‐country analyses, usually with panels of data going back to the 1970s, have shed important light on the impact of labor market policies on the economy. But they have been plagued by the fact that despite the convergence that is taking place in the context of the European Union, there are still large differences in many other dimensions across the union. Identifying the impact of policy from that of other national characteristics has been difficult. Chemin and Wasmer’s paper identifies a peculiarity in the coverage of legislation in France across its regions that enables a more reliable analysis of the impact of policy, on the assumption that other regional differences within France are less important than, say, differences between France and Germany. An area of France, Alsace‐Moselle, was under German jurisdiction between 1870 and 1918, and many laws that were brought in at that time are still in force. Subsequent changes in French legislation sometimes applied differently in Alsace‐Moselle than in the rest of France, and so one can do a “difference‐in‐difference” comparison of the response to the legislation change in Alsace‐Moselle with the response in the rest of France. Given that the reason that policy coverage is different in Alsace‐Moselle than in the rest of France is exogenous, this would be a valid comparison. Of course, a simple comparison without any correction requires that Alsace‐Moselle be identical in all other respects to the rest of France. This, however, is not likely to be the case. For example, they are the only regions in France that share a border with Germany, and this alone","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/596014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much effort in modern labor economics is devoted to finding “natural experiments,” which can be peculiarities in legislation that give rise to different treatments of otherwise similar subjects. When the interest is labor market policy, in Europe usually the unit of analysis is the nation. Countries are small and policies are national, but there are still significant policy differences across countries. Cross‐country analyses, usually with panels of data going back to the 1970s, have shed important light on the impact of labor market policies on the economy. But they have been plagued by the fact that despite the convergence that is taking place in the context of the European Union, there are still large differences in many other dimensions across the union. Identifying the impact of policy from that of other national characteristics has been difficult. Chemin and Wasmer’s paper identifies a peculiarity in the coverage of legislation in France across its regions that enables a more reliable analysis of the impact of policy, on the assumption that other regional differences within France are less important than, say, differences between France and Germany. An area of France, Alsace‐Moselle, was under German jurisdiction between 1870 and 1918, and many laws that were brought in at that time are still in force. Subsequent changes in French legislation sometimes applied differently in Alsace‐Moselle than in the rest of France, and so one can do a “difference‐in‐difference” comparison of the response to the legislation change in Alsace‐Moselle with the response in the rest of France. Given that the reason that policy coverage is different in Alsace‐Moselle than in the rest of France is exogenous, this would be a valid comparison. Of course, a simple comparison without any correction requires that Alsace‐Moselle be identical in all other respects to the rest of France. This, however, is not likely to be the case. For example, they are the only regions in France that share a border with Germany, and this alone
评论
现代劳动经济学的许多努力都致力于寻找“自然实验”,这可能是立法中的特殊性,导致对其他类似主题的不同处理。当关注劳动力市场政策时,在欧洲通常以国家为分析单位。国家虽小,政策也各有不同,但各国之间仍存在显著的政策差异。跨国分析(通常使用回溯至20世纪70年代的数据面板)揭示了劳动力市场政策对经济的影响。但他们一直受到这样一个事实的困扰:尽管在欧盟的背景下正在发生融合,但在欧盟的许多其他方面仍然存在巨大差异。很难从其他国家特点的影响中确定政策的影响。Chemin和Wasmer的论文指出了法国跨地区立法覆盖范围的一个特点,这使得对政策影响的分析更加可靠,假设法国内部的其他地区差异没有法国和德国之间的差异那么重要。法国的一个地区,阿尔萨斯-摩泽尔,在1870年至1918年间被德国管辖,当时引入的许多法律仍然有效。随后法国立法的变化有时在阿尔萨斯-摩泽尔的适用情况与法国其他地区不同,因此我们可以对阿尔萨斯-摩泽尔地区对立法变化的反应与法国其他地区的反应进行“差中差”的比较。鉴于阿尔萨斯-摩泽尔的政策覆盖范围与法国其他地区不同的原因是外生的,这将是一个有效的比较。当然,不加任何修正的简单比较要求阿尔萨斯-摩泽尔在所有其他方面与法国其他地区相同。然而,情况不太可能是这样。例如,它们是法国唯一与德国接壤的地区,仅此而已
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信