12.07.2015 Views

The Limits of Mathematics and NP Estimation in ... - Chichilnisky

The Limits of Mathematics and NP Estimation in ... - Chichilnisky

The Limits of Mathematics and NP Estimation in ... - Chichilnisky

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

82Advances <strong>in</strong> Econometrics - <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>and</strong> Applicationseducational atta<strong>in</strong>ments. However, <strong>in</strong> this case, greater human capital does not lead tohigher productivity (<strong>and</strong> thus, higher earn<strong>in</strong>gs), but greater human capital is acquired <strong>in</strong>order to signal higher productivity (Spence, 1973; Stiglitz, 1975). In other words, firms donot reward productivity <strong>in</strong> a direct way because this is not observed a priori; rather, they<strong>in</strong>fer productivity from education, <strong>and</strong> students choose an education level to signal theirproductivity to potential employers. Similarly, firms <strong>of</strong>fer higher wages for the highlyeducated, s<strong>in</strong>ce education acts as a screen<strong>in</strong>g device, so long as education is positivelycorrelated with the unobserved productivity.As a consequence, estimat<strong>in</strong>g equation (1) does not help to discrim<strong>in</strong>ate between humancapital <strong>and</strong> the sort<strong>in</strong>g models; while it may be viewed as a good approach to assess<strong>in</strong>g theeffect <strong>of</strong> school<strong>in</strong>g on earn<strong>in</strong>gs, it is not completely satisfactory <strong>in</strong> elucidat<strong>in</strong>g which viewprevails <strong>in</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> wage determ<strong>in</strong>ation (Weiss, 1995). However, consider<strong>in</strong>g the selfemployedas a control group may serve as a device to <strong>in</strong>vestigate the question, s<strong>in</strong>cesignal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> screen<strong>in</strong>g purposes seem to be unimportant for this group <strong>of</strong> workers (Riley,1979; Wolp<strong>in</strong>, 1977). <strong>The</strong> null hypothesis adopted by these authors is that returns toeducation will be higher <strong>in</strong> those occupations that exhibit signal<strong>in</strong>g, on the basis that it isdifficult to reconcile the idea that education for the self-employed could act as a sort<strong>in</strong>gmechanism. As a consequence, returns to school<strong>in</strong>g for those <strong>in</strong> paid employment should behigher, s<strong>in</strong>ce those <strong>in</strong>dividuals benefit from the dual effect <strong>of</strong> education: the productive <strong>and</strong>the <strong>in</strong>formative functions. By contrast, the self-employed are only remunerated for theproductive nature <strong>of</strong> education <strong>and</strong>, thus, returns are lower.However, although the theoretical implications seem quite clear-cut, the empirical evidenceis not conclusive. Focus<strong>in</strong>g on the US, some authors report that self-employed earn<strong>in</strong>gs areless responsive to human capital variables than wage-employed earn<strong>in</strong>gs (Hamilton, 2000),thereby favour<strong>in</strong>g the sort<strong>in</strong>g hypothesis., whereas others (Evans <strong>and</strong> Jovanovic, 1989;Evans <strong>and</strong> Leighton, 1989; Kawaguchi, 2003) f<strong>in</strong>d that self-employed earn<strong>in</strong>gs equationshave larger school<strong>in</strong>g coefficients than those correspond<strong>in</strong>g to the wage-employed, reject<strong>in</strong>gthe sort<strong>in</strong>g hypothesis.Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g between self-employed <strong>and</strong> wage-earner returns may also be helpful <strong>in</strong>provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to the features <strong>of</strong> theoretical labour market models. Thus, study<strong>in</strong>g theexperience pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>in</strong> earn<strong>in</strong>gs may serve to ascerta<strong>in</strong> whether agency issues, learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>match<strong>in</strong>g models, or compensat<strong>in</strong>g differentials theory, for example, better fit the labourmarket. A number <strong>of</strong> studies predict that earn<strong>in</strong>gs-experience pr<strong>of</strong>iles are flatter for the selfemployed.Under the agency or risk theories (Lazear, 1981; Lazear & Moore, 1984),employers should pay less than the marg<strong>in</strong>al productivity to workers when they are young,<strong>and</strong> more when they grow older, to avoid shirk<strong>in</strong>g on the job, contrary to the case <strong>of</strong> theself-employed, given that these <strong>in</strong>dividuals have no <strong>in</strong>centive to shirk. Similarly,asymmetric <strong>in</strong>formation models (Salop & Salop, 1976) argue that, because employers are<strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imiz<strong>in</strong>g the quits <strong>of</strong> more productive workers, they <strong>of</strong>fer tilted-up wagepr<strong>of</strong>iles as a screen<strong>in</strong>g device, <strong>in</strong> such a way that only workers with low probabilities <strong>of</strong>quitt<strong>in</strong>g apply for jobs. By contrast, s<strong>in</strong>ce the self-employed are not will<strong>in</strong>g to quit, they haveflatter earn<strong>in</strong>gs pr<strong>of</strong>iles than those <strong>of</strong> wage earners. In the same ve<strong>in</strong>, learn<strong>in</strong>g models claimthat, due to sector-specific abilities that are unknown for the <strong>in</strong>dividual, workers may notmatch themselves to the appropriate sector. Those who realize they have a poor match quittheir jobs, <strong>and</strong> only those with relatively good matches stay. This situation causes experiencepr<strong>of</strong>iles to <strong>in</strong>crease over time (Jovanovic, 1979, 1982). Furthermore, s<strong>in</strong>ce the self-employedhabitually <strong>in</strong>vest strongly at the start-up <strong>of</strong> their bus<strong>in</strong>esses, they are not able to move out <strong>of</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!