The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Roy Model

  • James J. Heckman
  • Christopher Taber
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2627

Abstract

The Roy (1951) model of self-selection on outcomes is one of the most important models in economics. It is a framework for analysing comparative advantage. The original model analysed occupational choice with heterogeneous skill levels and has subsequently been applied in many other contexts. This article presents the model, discusses its identification, and describes some empirical applications based on the model.

Keywords

Comparative advantage Discrete choice Estimation Identification Occupational choice Roy model Selection bias Self-selection Separability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Aakvik, A., J.J. Heckman, and E.J. Vytlacil. 2005. Estimating treatment effects for discrete outcomes when responses to treatment vary: An application to Norwegian vocational rehabilitation programs. Journal of Econometrics 125: 15–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbring, J.H., and J.J. Heckman. 2007. Econometric evaluation of social programs, part III: Distributional treatment effects, dynamic treatment effects, dynamic discrete choice, and general equilibrium policy evaluation. In Handbook of econometrics, ed. J. Heckman and E. Leamer, Vol. 6. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Buera, F.J. 2006. Non-parametric identification and testable implications of the Roy model. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, S.V., and C. Taber. 2004. Estimation of educational borrowing constraints using returns to schooling. Journal of Political Economy 112: 132–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carneiro, P., K. Hansen, and J.J. Heckman. 2003. Estimating distributions of treatment effects with an application to the returns to schooling and measurement of the effects of uncertainty on college choice. 2001 Lawrence R. Klein Lecture. International Economic Review 44: 361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunha, F., and J.J. Heckman. 2007. Identifying and estimating the distributions of ex post and ex ante returns to schooling: A survey of recent developments. Labour Economics 14: 870–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunha, F., J.J. Heckman, and S. Navarro. 2005. Separating uncertainty from heterogeneity in life cycle earnings. The 2004 Hicks Lecture. Oxford Economic Papers 57: 191–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckstein, Z., and K.I. Wolpin. 1999. Why youths drop out of high school: The impact of preferences, opportunities, and abilities. Econometrica 67: 1295–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gould, E.D. 2002. Rising wage inequality, comparative advantage, and the growing importance of general skills in the United States. Journal of Labor Economics 20: 105–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gronau, R. 1974. Wage comparisons – a selectivity bias. Journal of Political Economy 82: 1119–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heckman, J.J. 1974. Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrica 42: 679–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckman, J.J. 1990. Varieties of selection bias. American Economic Review 80: 313–318.Google Scholar
  13. Heckman, J.J., and B.E. Honoré. 1989. The identifiability of the competing risks model. Biometrika 76: 325–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heckman, J.J., and B.E. Honoré. 1990. The empirical content of the Roy model. Econometrica 58: 1121–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman, J.J., L.J. Lochner, and C. Taber. 1998a. Explaining rising wage inequality: Explorations with a dynamic general equilibrium model of labor earnings with heterogeneous agents. Review of Economic Dynamics 1: 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman, J.J., L.J. Lochner, and C. Taber. 1998b. General-equilibrium treatment effects: A study of tuition policy. American Economic Review 88: 381–386.Google Scholar
  17. Heckman, J.J., L.J. Lochner, and C. Taber. 1998c. Tax policy and human-capital formation. American Economic Review 88: 293–297.Google Scholar
  18. Heckman, J.J., L.J. Lochner, and P.E. Todd. 2006. Earnings equations and rates of return: The Mincer equation and beyond. In Handbook of the economics of education, ed. E.A. Hanushek and F. Welch. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Heckman, J.J., and S. Navarro. 2007. Dynamic discrete choice and dynamic treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics 136: 341–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckman, J.J., and G.L. Sedlacek. 1985. Heterogeneity, aggregation, and market wage functions: An empirical model of self-selection in the labor market. Journal of Political Economy 93: 1077–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckman, J.J., and G.L. Sedlacek. 1990. Self-selection and the distribution of hourly wages. Journal of Labor Economics 8(1, Part 2): S329–S363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heckman, J.J., and J.A. Smith. 1998. Evaluating the welfare state. In Econometrics and economic theory in the twentieth century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium, ed. S. Strom. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Keane, M.P., and K.I. Wolpin. 1997. The career decisions of young men. Journal of Political Economy 105: 473–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matzkin, R.L. 1992. Nonparametric and distribution-free estimation of the binary threshold crossing and the binary choice models. Econometrica 60: 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roy, A. 1951. Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers 3: 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taber, C.R. 2000. Semiparametric identification and heterogeneity in discrete choice dynamic programming models. Journal of Econometrics 96: 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Willis, R.J., and S. Rosen. 1979. Education and self-selection. Journal of Political Economy 87(5, Part 2): S7–S36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James J. Heckman
    • 1
  • Christopher Taber
    • 1
  1. 1.