超越格里利奇斯偏见

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Corrado Andini, Monica Andini
{"title":"超越格里利奇斯偏见","authors":"Corrado Andini, Monica Andini","doi":"10.1108/ijm-08-2022-0378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The paper investigates the determinants of the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) bias of the wage return to graduate education for high-school workers in Portugal.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The study uses matched employer-employee data for Portugal, over the 2002–2012 period, to estimate a wage-schooling model that controls not only for individual observed characteristics, firm observed characteristics and year fixed effects, but also for three high-dimensional vectors of fixed effects – one for employees, one for employers and one for job titles.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The main results are the following. First, disregarding individual fixed effects is highly problematic, accounting for 48.5% of the OLS bias. Second, disregarding firm fixed effects is also problematic, accounting for 12.3% of the OLS bias.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>The implication for the studies in the labor-supply literature that estimate, by means of instrumental variables, the wage returns to in-school work or to on-the-job schooling is that an instrument dealing with employee’s unobserved ability only may fail to meet the exclusion restriction.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>Take the typical instrument based on a policy reform that changes the compulsory schooling level in the population. This instrument may well be argued to be correlated with the education of the employee and uncorrelated with the unobserved ability of the employee, but unfortunately it cannot be seen as orthogonal to the unobserved ability of the employer because of its correlation with the (unobserved) education of the manager. This is a simple corollary of the fact that the employee and the manager belong, in general, to the same population.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\n<p>Individuals invest a considerable amount of resources in education, which is seen to have positive effects on several dimensions of individual life. Yet, the estimation of these effects is still surrounded by technical difficulties.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Gelbach decomposition to investigate the determinants of the OLS bias of the wage return to graduate education for high-school workers.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47915,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Manpower","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the Griliches biases\",\"authors\":\"Corrado Andini, Monica Andini\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijm-08-2022-0378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The paper investigates the determinants of the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) bias of the wage return to graduate education for high-school workers in Portugal.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>The study uses matched employer-employee data for Portugal, over the 2002–2012 period, to estimate a wage-schooling model that controls not only for individual observed characteristics, firm observed characteristics and year fixed effects, but also for three high-dimensional vectors of fixed effects – one for employees, one for employers and one for job titles.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The main results are the following. First, disregarding individual fixed effects is highly problematic, accounting for 48.5% of the OLS bias. Second, disregarding firm fixed effects is also problematic, accounting for 12.3% of the OLS bias.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\\n<p>The implication for the studies in the labor-supply literature that estimate, by means of instrumental variables, the wage returns to in-school work or to on-the-job schooling is that an instrument dealing with employee’s unobserved ability only may fail to meet the exclusion restriction.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\\n<p>Take the typical instrument based on a policy reform that changes the compulsory schooling level in the population. This instrument may well be argued to be correlated with the education of the employee and uncorrelated with the unobserved ability of the employee, but unfortunately it cannot be seen as orthogonal to the unobserved ability of the employer because of its correlation with the (unobserved) education of the manager. This is a simple corollary of the fact that the employee and the manager belong, in general, to the same population.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Social implications</h3>\\n<p>Individuals invest a considerable amount of resources in education, which is seen to have positive effects on several dimensions of individual life. Yet, the estimation of these effects is still surrounded by technical difficulties.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Gelbach decomposition to investigate the determinants of the OLS bias of the wage return to graduate education for high-school workers.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":47915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Manpower\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Manpower\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-08-2022-0378\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Manpower","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-08-2022-0378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本文研究了葡萄牙高中生接受研究生教育的工资回报率的普通最小二乘法(OLS)偏差的决定因素。研究使用 2002-2012 年期间葡萄牙雇主与雇员的匹配数据来估计工资-学校教育模型,该模型不仅控制了个人观察特征、公司观察特征和年份固定效应,还控制了三个高维固定效应向量--一个是雇员向量,一个是雇主向量,一个是职称向量。首先,忽略个人固定效应问题很大,占 OLS 偏差的 48.5%。研究的局限性/启示对于劳动力供给文献中通过工具变量估算在校工作或在职学校教育的工资回报的研究而言,仅涉及雇员未观察到的能力的工具可能不符合排除限制。这种工具完全可以说与雇员的教育相关,而与雇员的非观察能力不相关,但遗憾的是,由于它与管理者的(非观察)教育相关,因此不能被视为与雇主的非观察能力正交。社会影响个人在教育方面投入了大量资源,这被认为对个人生活的多个方面产生了积极影响。原创性/价值 据作者所知,这是第一项使用 Gelbach 分解法来研究高中生接受研究生教育的工资回报率的 OLS 偏差的决定因素的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond the Griliches biases

Purpose

The paper investigates the determinants of the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) bias of the wage return to graduate education for high-school workers in Portugal.

Design/methodology/approach

The study uses matched employer-employee data for Portugal, over the 2002–2012 period, to estimate a wage-schooling model that controls not only for individual observed characteristics, firm observed characteristics and year fixed effects, but also for three high-dimensional vectors of fixed effects – one for employees, one for employers and one for job titles.

Findings

The main results are the following. First, disregarding individual fixed effects is highly problematic, accounting for 48.5% of the OLS bias. Second, disregarding firm fixed effects is also problematic, accounting for 12.3% of the OLS bias.

Research limitations/implications

The implication for the studies in the labor-supply literature that estimate, by means of instrumental variables, the wage returns to in-school work or to on-the-job schooling is that an instrument dealing with employee’s unobserved ability only may fail to meet the exclusion restriction.

Practical implications

Take the typical instrument based on a policy reform that changes the compulsory schooling level in the population. This instrument may well be argued to be correlated with the education of the employee and uncorrelated with the unobserved ability of the employee, but unfortunately it cannot be seen as orthogonal to the unobserved ability of the employer because of its correlation with the (unobserved) education of the manager. This is a simple corollary of the fact that the employee and the manager belong, in general, to the same population.

Social implications

Individuals invest a considerable amount of resources in education, which is seen to have positive effects on several dimensions of individual life. Yet, the estimation of these effects is still surrounded by technical difficulties.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Gelbach decomposition to investigate the determinants of the OLS bias of the wage return to graduate education for high-school workers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
11.40%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: ■Employee welfare ■Human aspects during the introduction of technology ■Human resource recruitment, retention and development ■National and international aspects of HR planning ■Objectives of human resource planning and forecasting requirements ■The working environment
×
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