The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Palgrave Macmillan

Selection Bias and Self-Selection

  • James J. Heckman
Living reference work entry

Later version available View entry history

First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1762-1
How to cite

Abstract

The problem of selection bias in economic and social statistics arises when a rule other than simple random sampling is used to sample the underlying population that is the object of interest. The distorted representation of a true population as a consequence of a sampling rule is the essence of the selection problem. Distorting selection rules may be the outcome of decisions of sample survey statisticians, self-selection decisions by the agents being studied or both.

Keywords

Population Distribution Reservation Wage Empirical Content Weighting Rule Sampling Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Amemiya, T. 1984. Tobit models: A survey. Journal of Econometrics 24: 3–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjorklund, A., and R. Moffitt. 1986. Estimation of wage gains and welfare gains from self selection models. Review of Economics and Statistics 24: 1–63.Google Scholar
  3. Cain, G., and H. Watts. 1973. Toward a summary and synthesis of the evidence. In Income maintenance and labor supply, ed. G. Cain and H. Watts. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, K., and L. Summers. 1979. Labor market dynamics and unemployment: A reconsideration. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1: 13–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosslett, S. 1981. Maximum likelihood estimation from choice based samples. Econometrica.Google Scholar
  6. Cosslett, S. 1984. Distribution free estimator of regression model with sample selectivity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  7. Domencich, T., and D. McFadden. 1975. Urban travel demand. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Flinn, C., and J. Heckman. 1982. New methods for analyzing structural models of labor force dynamics. Journal of Econometrics 18: 5–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallant, R., and R. Nychka. 1984. Consistent estimation of the censored regression model. Unpublished manuscript, North Carolina State.Google Scholar
  10. Gill, R., and J. Wellner. 1985. Large sample theory of empirical distributions in biased sampling models. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  11. Goldberger, A. 1983. Abnormal selection bias. In Studies in econometrics, time series and multivariate statistics, ed. S. Karlin, T. Amemiya, and L. Goodman. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Gronau, R. 1974. Wage comparisons-a selectivity bias. Journal of Political Economy 82(6): 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall, R. 1982. The importance of lifetime jobs in the U.S. economy. American Economic Review 72: 716–724.Google Scholar
  14. Heckman, J. 1974. Shadow prices, market wages and labor supply. Econometrica 42(4): 679–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman, J. 1976. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5(4): 475–492.Google Scholar
  16. Heckman, J. 1977. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1): 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman, J., and B. Honoré. 1986. The empirical content of the Roy model. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Heckman, J., and T. MaCurdy. 1981. New methods for estimating labor supply functions. In Research in labor economics, vol. 4, ed. R. Ehrenberg. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. Heckman, J., and R. Robb. 1985. Alternative methods for evaluating the effect of training on earnings. In Longitudinal analysis of labor market data, ed. J. Heckman and B. Singer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckman, J., and G. Sedlacek. 1985. Heterogeneity, aggregation and market wage functions. Journal of Political Economy 93: 1077–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckman, J., and B. Singer. 1985. Econometric analysis of longitudinal data. In Handbook of econometrics, vol. III, ed. Z. Griliches and M. Intriligator. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, L.F. 1978. Unionism and wage rates: A simultaneous equations model with qualitative and limited dependent variables. International Economic Review 19: 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manski, C., and S. Lerman. 1977. The estimation of choice probabilities from choice based samples. Econometrica 45: 1977–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manski, C., and D. McFadden. 1981. Alternative estimates and sample designs for discrete choice analysis. In Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications, ed. C. Manski and D. McFadden. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pearson, K. 1901. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. Philosophical Transactions 195: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rao, C.R. 1965. On discrete distributions arising out of methods of ascertainment. In Classical and contagious distributions, ed. G. Patil. Calcutta: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Roy, A.D. 1951. Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers 3: 135–146.Google Scholar
  28. Vardi, Y. 1983. Nonparametric estimation in the presence of length bias. Annals of Statistics 10: 616–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vardi, Y. 1985. Empirical distributions in selection bias models. Annals of Statistics 13: 178–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Willis, R., and S. Rosen. 1979. Education and self selection. Journal of Political Economy 87: S7–S36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • James J. Heckman
    • 1
  1. 1.