Advertisement

Quantile regression with sample selection: Estimating women’s return to education in the U.S.

  • Moshe Buchinsky
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Empirical Economics book series (STUDEMP)

Abstract

This study uses quantile regression techniques to analyze changes in the returns to education for women. The data used is the March Current Population Survey for the years 1968, 1973, 1979, 1986 and 1990. The first step in estimating the single (linear) index selection equation uses Ichimura’s (1993) semiparametric procedure. To correct for an unknown form of a sample selection bias in the quantile regression, the second step incorporates a nonparametric method, using an idea similar to one developed by Heckman (1980) and Newey (1991) for mean regression, and Buchinsky (1998) for quantile regression.

The results show that: (a) the returns to education increased enormously for the younger cohorts, but very little for the older cohorts; (b) in general the returns are higher at the lower quantiles in the beginning of the sample period and higher at the higher quantiles by the end of the sample period; (c) there is a significant sample selection bias for all age groups at almost all quantiles; (d) toward the end of the sample period there is a significant convergence of the returns at the various quantiles, especially for the younger cohorts and age groups; and (e) the semiparametric estimates of the selection equation are considerably different from those obtained for a parametric probit model.

Key words

Quantile Regression Nonparametric Selection Correction Return to Education. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews DWK, Schafgans M (1998) Semiparametric estimation of a sample selection model. Review of Economic Studies 65: 497–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn M, Bloom D (1987) Earnings and income inequality in the United States. Population and Development Review 13: 575–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackburn M, Bloom D, Freeman R (1993) Changes in earning differentials in the 1980’s: Concordance, convergence, causes, and consequences. In Papadimitriou DB, Wolff EN (eds.) Poverty and Prosperity in the USA in the Late Twentieth Century. St. Martin’s Press New York pp. 275–307Google Scholar
  4. Bound J, Johnson G (1992) Changes in the structure of wages during the 1980’s: An evaluation of alternative explanations. American Economic Review 82: 37. 1–392Google Scholar
  5. Bound J, Johnson G (1991) Wages in the United States during the 1980’s and beyond. In Kosters M (ed.) Workers and Their Wages ( Washington D.C.: The AEI Press ): 77–103Google Scholar
  6. Buchinsky M (1998) The dynamic of changes in the female wage distribution in the USA: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics 13: 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchinsky M (1995) Quantile regression box-cox transformation model and changes in the returns to schooling and experience. Journal of Econometrics 65: 109–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchinsky M (1994) Changes in the U.S. wage structure 1963–1987: Application of quantile regression. Econometrica 62: 405–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Card D, Krueger A (1992) Does school quality matter? Returns to education and the character- istics of public schools in the United States. The Journal of Political Economy 100: 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chamberlain G (1994) Quantile regression, censoring, and the structure of wage. In Sims C (ed.) Advances in Econometrics: Sixth World Congress. Cambridge University Press, New York, Vol. I, pp. 171–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craven P, Wahba G (1979) Smoothing noisy data with spline functions. Numerische Mathematik 31: 377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis S, Haltiwanger J (1991) Wage dispersion between and within U.S. manufacturing plants 1962–1986. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics: 115–180Google Scholar
  13. Goldin C (1990) Understanding the gender gap: An economic history of American women. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gronau R (1974) Wage comparison — A selectivity bias. The Journal of Political Economy 82: 1119–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman J (1990) Varieties of sample selection bias. American Economic Review 80: 313–318Google Scholar
  16. Heckman J (1980) Sample selection bias as a specification error. In Stromsdorfer E, Farkas G (eds.) Evaluation Studies, Review Annual 5. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 61–74Google Scholar
  17. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161 Heckman J, Honoré B (1990) The empirical content of the roy model. Econometrica 58: 1121–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckman J, Robb R (1985) Alternative methods for estimating the impact of interventions. In Heckman J, Singer B (eds.) Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 156–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ichimura H (1993) Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models. Journal of Econometrics 58: 71–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juhn C, Murphy K, Pierce P (1993) Wage inequality and the rise in returns to skill. The Journal of Political Economy 101: 410–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katz L, Murphy K (1992) Changes in the relative wages 1963–87: Supply and demand factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 35–78Google Scholar
  22. Klein R, Spady R (1993) An efficient semiparametric estimator of the binary response model. Econometrica 61: 387–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koenker R, Bassett G (1978) Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46: 33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levy F, Murnane R (1992) U.S. earnings levels and earnings inequality: A review of recent trends and proposed explanation. Journal of Economic Literature 30: 1333–1381Google Scholar
  25. Mincer J (1974) Schooling experience and earnings. NBER, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Mroz T (1987) The sensitivity of an empirical model of married women’s hours of work to economic and statistical assumptions. Econometrica 55: 765–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy K, Welch F (1992) The structure of wages. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 285–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy K, Welch F (1991) The role of international trade in wage differentials. In Kosters M (ed.) Workers and Their Wages. The AEI Press, Washington D.C, pp. 39–69Google Scholar
  29. Murphy K, Welch F (1990) Empirical age-earning profiles. Journal of Labor Economics 8: 202–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newey W (1991) Two step series estimation of sample selection model. Unpublished manuscript, MITGoogle Scholar
  31. Newey W, Powell J, Walker J (1990) Semiparametric estimation of selection models: Some empirical results. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings 80: 324–328Google Scholar
  32. Powell J, Stock J, Stoker T (1989) Semiparametric estimation of index coefficients. Econometrica 57: 1435–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moshe Buchinsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBrown University, National Bureau of Economic Research and CREST-INSEEProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations