Advertisement

Cliometrica

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 223–248 | Cite as

Child labor legislation: effective, benign, both, or neither?

  • Federico A. BugniEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between the state-specific child labor legislation and the decline in child labor that occurred in the US between 1880 and 1900. The existing literature that addresses this question uses a difference-in-difference estimation technique. We contribute to this literature in two ways. First, we argue that this estimation technique can produce misleading results due to (a) the possibility of multiplicity of equilibria and (b) the non-linearity of the underlying econometric model. Second, we develop an empirical strategy to identify the mechanism by which the legislation affected child labor decisions. In particular, besides establishing whether the legislation was effective or not, our analysis may determine whether the legislation constituted a benign policy or not, i.e., whether the legislation constrained the behavior of families (not benign) or whether it changed the labor market to a new equilibrium in which families voluntarily respected the law (benign).

Keywords

Child labor Child labor legislation Treatment effect estimation Difference-in-difference estimation 

JEL classification

C21 C25 J20 N31 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the editor Claude Diebolt and three anonymous referees for comments and suggestions that have significantly helped to improve this paper. I am also thankful for helpful discussions with Esteban Aucejo, Arnau Bages, Joe Ferrie, Jon Gemus, Silvia Glaubach, Joel Horowitz, Viktor Subbotin, and Giovanni Zanalda. Erik Vogt provided excellent research assistance. Any and all errors and omissions are my own. Financial support from the Robert Eisner Memorial Fellowship and the Dissertation Year Fellowship is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ Lett 80(1):123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu K (1999) Child labor: cause, consequence and cure, with remarks on international labor standards. J Econ Lit 37(3):1083–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu K, Van P (1999) The economics of child labor: reply. Am Econ Rev 89(5):1386–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bower W, Finegan T (1969) The economics of labor force participation. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown M, Christiansen J, Philips P (1992) The decline of child labor in the US fruit and vegetable canning industry: law or economics? Bus Hist Rev 66(4):723–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter S, Sutch R (1996) Fixing the facts: editing of the 1880 US census of occupations with implications for long-term labor force trends and the sociology of official statistics. Hist Methods J Quant nterdiscip Hist 29:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldin C (1979) Household and market production of families in a late nineteenth century american city. Explor Econ Hist 16(1):111–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Margo R, Finegan T (1996) Compulsory schooling legislation and school attendance in turn-of-the century america: a ‘natural experiment’ approach. Econ Lett 53:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meyer B (1995) Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. J Bus Econ Stat 13(2):151–161Google Scholar
  10. Moehling C (1996) Work and family: intergenerational support in american families. PhD dissertation, Northwestern UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Moehling C (1999) State child labor laws and the decline of child labor. Explor Econ Hist 36:72–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nardinelli C (1980) Child labor and the factory acts. J Econ Hist 36:72–106Google Scholar
  13. Ogburn W (1912) Progress and uniformity in child-labor legislation: a study in statistical measurement. PhD dissertation, Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Osterman P (1979) Education and labor markets at the turn of the century. Politics Soc 34(1):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Puhani PA (2008) The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear “difference-in-differences” models, mimeo: IZA, discussion paper no. 3478Google Scholar
  16. Sanderson A (1974) Child-labor legislation and the labor force participation of children. J Econ Hist 34(1):297–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wooldridge J (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations