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:摘要明确将失业退出过程表示为序列二元响应模型,并比较 Logit、Probit 等形式。

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
W. Narendranathan
M. B. Stewart

失业持续期延长时,失业收入的影响如何变化?

研究问题
论文研究失业期间收入对退出失业概率的影响是否随失业持续期改变,以及比例风险限制和不可观测异质性如何影响这一判断。
方法与思路
作者扩展比例风险模型,允许部分变量的影响不受限制,并估计序列二元响应模型及灵活容纳持续期依赖和异质性的 Logit 模型。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,英国失业男性样本拒绝比例风险限制,收入影响随持续期迅速减弱;优选异质性设定下约五个月后不再显著。
阅读关注点
应核对收入影响随时间变化的参数化方式、异质性混合分布,以及统计不显著与经济效应很小之间如何区分。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要,不能把收入系数解释为已识别的因果效应,也不能把五个月后的不显著理解为效应为零。

原文摘要

Abstract This paper investigates how the effect of income while unemployed on the probability of an individual leaving unemployment varies with the length of time that the individual has been unemployed. We examine this question in the context of a variety of alternative econometric models. We extend the Proportional Hazards model with unrestricted baseline hazard to one in which there are unrestricted effects of a subset of the explanatory variables and also consider models that can be estimated as series of binary response models. The proportional hazard restrictions are rejected for the sample of British unemployed men analysed and in the binary sequence framework Logit and Probit models based on symmetric distributions dominate (in likelihood terms) the Extreme Value form model implied by extension of the Proportional Hazards formulation. Logit models with a flexible form for the duration dependence which also incorporate unobserved heterogeneity in a flexible way are estimated. The results for all formulations indicate a rapidly declining effect of unemployment income as a spell lengthens, with no significant effect for the long‐term unemployed. The preferred specifications which allow for omitted heterogeneity indicate no significant effect after about 5 months, and this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of previous labour‐market experience variables and to the choice of mixing distribution.

笔记与分组