Advertisement

Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 463–499 | Cite as

Work experience as a source of specification error in earnings models: implications for gender wage decompositions

  • Tracy L. ReganEmail author
  • Ronald L. Oaxaca
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This paper models the bias from using potential vs actual experience in log wage models. The nature of the problem is best viewed as specification error as opposed to classical errors-in-variables. We correct for the discrepancy between potential and actual work experience and create a predicted measure of work experience. We use the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and extend our findings to the Integrated Public Use Microdata Sample. Our results suggest that potential experience biases the effects of schooling and the rates of return to labor market experience. Using such a measure in earnings models underestimates the explained portion of the male–female wage gap. We are able to separately identify the decomposition biases associated with incorrect experience measures and biased parameter estimates.

Keywords

Experience Decomposition Specification error 

JEL Classification

C81 J24 J31 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antecol H, Bedard K (2002) The relative earnings of Young Mexican, Black, and White Women. Ind Labor Relat Rev 56(1):122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antecol H, Bedard K (2004) The racial wage gap: the importance of labor force attachment differences across Black, Mexican, and White Men. J Hum Resour 39(2):564–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashenfelter O, Rouse C (1998) Income, schooling, and ability: evidence from a new sample of identical twins. Q J Econ 113(1):253–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR (1999) Ability biases in schooling returns and twins: a test and new estimates. Econ Educ Rev 18:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black DA, Berger MC, Scott FA (2000) Bounding parameter estimates with nonclassical measurement error. Am Stat Assoc 95(451):739–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blank R (1988) Simultaneously modeling the supply of weeks and hours of work among female household heads. J Labor Econ 6(2):177–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blau FD, Kahn LM (1996) Wage structure and gender earnings differentials: an international comparison. Economica 63(250):S29–S62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollinger CR (1998) Measurement error in the current population survey: a nonparametric look. J Labor Econ 16(3):576–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bound J, Krueger AB (1991) The extent of measurement error in longitudinal earnings data: do two wrongs make a right? J Labor Econ 9(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bound J, Duncan GJ, Rodgers WL (1994) Evidence on the validity of cross-sectional and longitudinal labor market data. J Labor Econ 12(3):345–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bound J, Solon G (1999) Double trouble: on the value of twins-based estimation of the return to schooling. Econ Educ Rev 18(2):169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ding Z, Engle RF (2001) Large scale conditional covariance matrix modeling, estimation and testing. Acad Econ Pap 29(2):157–184Google Scholar
  13. Duncan GJ, Hill DH (1985) An investigation of the extent and consequences of measurement error in labor-economic survey data. J Labor Econ 3(4):508–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Filer RK (1993) The usefulness of predicted values for prior work experience in analyzing labor market outcomes for women. J Hum Resour 28(3):519–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garvey N, Reimers C (1980) Predicted vs. potential work experience in an earnings function for young women. In: Ehrenberg R (ed) Research in labor economics 3. JAI, Greenwich, pp 99–127Google Scholar
  16. Kelejian HH (1971) Two-stage least squares and econometric systems linear in parameters but nonlinear in the endogenous variables. J Am Stat Assoc 66(334):373–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee L, Sepanski JH (1995) Estimation of linear and nonlinear errors-in-variables. J Am Stat Assoc 90(429):130–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mincer J, Polachek S (1974) Family investments in human capital: earnings of women. J Polit Econ 82(2):S76–S108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moulton BR (1986) An analysis of female work experience data derived from social security records. J Econ Soc Meas 14(1):66–75Google Scholar
  20. Murphy KM, Welch F (1990) Empirical age-earnings profiles. J Labor Econ 8(2):202–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oaxaca RL, Ransom MR (2003) Using econometric models for intrafirm equity salary adjustments. J Econ Inequality 1(3):221–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oaxaca RL, Ransom MR (1999) Identification in detailed wage decompositions. Rev Econ Stat 81(1):154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polachek S (1975) Potential biases in measuring male-female discrimination. J Hum Resour 10(2):205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Regan TL, Oaxaca RL, Burdhardt G (2007) A human capital model of the effects of abilities and family background on optimal schooling levels. Econ Inq 45(4):721–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodgers WL, Brown C, Duncan GJ (1993) Errors in survey reports of earnings, hours worked, and hourly wages. J Am Stat Assoc 88(424):1208–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarnikar S, Oaxaca RL, Sorensen T (2007) Did females receive lenient sentences despite the federal sentencing guidelines. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  27. Styan G (1973) Hadamard products and multivariate statistical analysis. Linear Algebra Appl 6:217–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.IZABonnGermany
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options