Distribution regression with censored selection
删失选择下的分布回归AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要核心是样本选择下的分布回归、工资分位数及性别工资差距,直接对应分位数与分布效应。
删失选择下的分布回归AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Chernozhukov, Fernández-Val, and Luo (2023, CFL (2023) hereafter) considered a distribution regression model subject to sample selection with a binary selection mechanism. In this paper, we show how to identify and estimate a semi-parametric distribution regression model subject to a censored selection rule. With censored selection, we do not need to impose the usual outcome exclusion restriction or exclusion of the level of the latent selection variable from the selection sorting function for model identification, unlike CFL (2023). We propose new semiparametric estimators and corresponding inference procedures for model parameters and related functional parameters. We apply our method to investigate wage inequality in the UK for the period 1978–2000 using the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) data. Our findings reveal that (i) the selection sorting exclusion and outcome exclusion restrictions imposed by CFL (2023) are rejected; (ii) there is negative selection into work at most quantile levels for females, but not for males; (iii) in contrast to CFL (2023), our selection sorting effect pattern does not offer clear evidence on assortative matching or glass ceiling in the UK labor market; (iv) the latent gender wage gaps after correcting for selection bias are about 25%–50% of CFL (2023)’s estimates, and are also significantly smaller than the observed wage gaps; (v) similar to CFL (2023), there exists some strong evidence on gender discrimination in the UK labor market.