跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接使用分位数选择模型分析工资分布、不平等与性别工资差距。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Songnian Chen
Nianqing Liu
Hanghui Zhang
Yahong Zhou

利用删失选择分位数回归估计英国工资不平等

研究问题
能否利用工时提供的删失选择信息,在不要求排除限制的模型中校正就业样本选择,并重新评估英国工资不平等与性别工资差距?
方法与思路
作者以删失工时方程刻画就业选择,将工资与选择方程均设为半参数分位数回归,提出选择校正估计量并应用于既有英国数据。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要报告男性负向选择、女性正向选择,以及选择校正后性别工资差距随时间缩小得更少;这些是所提模型下的实证结果。
阅读关注点
应核对无排除限制时识别依赖的其他条件、工时删失机制、工资与选择的关联设定,以及与原二元选择模型差异的来源。
阅读边界
仅据所给 RePEc 出版社摘要,无法判断识别条件和结果稳健性;不需要排除限制不代表不需要其他限制,也不推断其他版本变化。

原文摘要

Arellano and Bonhomme (2017) proposed a quantile selection model to study the evolution of wage inequality in the UK, which specifies a binary selection equation and requires an exclusion restriction. In this paper we propose a quantile selection model with a more informative censored selection equation. Following Heckman (1974, 1979), Heckman and Sedlacek (1990), and Blundell et al. (2003), among others, the employment selection equation could be equivalently modeled by an hours worked equation through a censored selection. In our model, both the outcome and selection equations are specified as semiparametric quantile regressions, and no exclusion restriction is needed. We propose a quantile selection estimator that was applied to study wage inequality using the same data as in Arellano and Bonhomme (2017). Among our major findings based on our method, after adjusting for sample selection, (i) there is significant negative selection among males, in contrast to the finding of significant positive selection by Arellano and Bonhomme (2017); (ii) similar to Arellano and Bonhomme (2017), we also find positive selection for females, but our selection effects are more significant than those of Arellano and Bonhomme (2017) (See Section 5 for more details); (iii) the gender wage gap has remained large and accounting for selection leads to much smaller reduction in the gender wage gap over time, compared with the observed wage distribution and that of Arellano and Bonhomme (2017).

笔记与分组
相关领域论文