Knowledge that Transforms

It is well known that unless worker-firm match quality is controlled for, reduced-form estimates of returns to firm tenure will be biased. In this paper, we show that there is a further pervasive source of bias, namely, the comovement of firm employment and firm wages. We argue that firm-year fixed effects must be used to eliminate this bias. Estimates from two large-panel data sets from Germany and Portugal show that the bias is empirically important. Finally, we show that the results extend to tenure correlates used in macroeconomics, such as the minimum unemployment rate since joining the firm.

We exploit rules of class formation to identify the causal effect of increasing the number of immigrants in a classroom on natives’ test scores, keeping class size and quality of the two types of students constant (pure ethnic composition [PEC] effect). We explain why this is a relevant policy parameter although it has been neglected so far. The PEC effect is sizable and negative (16% of a standard deviation) on language and math scores. For first-generation immigrants, it is more negative (30% of a standard deviation). Estimates that cannot control for endogenous adjustments implemented by principals are instead considerably smaller.

We build and estimate a nonstationary structural job search model that incorporates the main stylized features of a typical job search monitoring scheme in unemployment insurance (UI) and acknowledges that search effort and requirements are measured imperfectly. On the basis of Belgian data, monitoring is found to affect search behavior only weakly because assessments were scheduled late and infrequently, the monitoring technology was not sufficiently precise, and lenient Belgian UI results in caseloads that are less responsive to incentives than elsewhere. Simulations show how changing the aforementioned design features can enhance effectiveness and that precise monitoring is key in this.

Being hired into a job depends not only on one’s own skill but also on that of other applicants. When another able applicant applies, a well-suited worker may be forced into unemployment or into accepting an inferior job. A model of this process defines over- and underqualification and provides predictions on its prevalence and on the wages of mismatched workers. It also implies that unemployment is concentrated among the least skilled workers, while vacancies are concentrated among high-skilled jobs. Four data sets are used to confirm the implications and establish that the hiring probability is low when competing applicants are able.

We study a model in which corporate social responsibility arises in response to inefficient regulation. In our model, firms, governments, and workers interact. Firms create negative spillovers that can be attenuated through government regulation, which is set endogenously and may not be socially optimal. Companies can hire socially responsible employees who enjoy correcting spillovers. Because firms can capture rents created by allowing this, they sometimes find it optimal to lobby for inefficient rules and then encourage socially responsible behavior in their midst. Thus, social responsibility can either increase or decrease social welfare, depending on the costs of political capture.

We study the relationship among productivity, management practices, and employee ability using German data combining management practices surveys with employees’ longitudinal earnings records. Including human capital reduces the association between productivity and management practices by 30%–50%. Only a small fraction is accounted for by the higher human capital of the average employee at better-managed firms. A larger share is attributable to the human capital of the highest-paid workers, that is, the managers. A similar share is mediated through the pay premiums offered by better-managed firms. We find that better-managed firms recruit and retain workers with higher average human capital.

Decomposing the year-to-year changes in the earnings distribution from 2004 to 2013, we analyze the role of the employer in explaining earnings inequality in the United States. Movements between the bottom, middle, and top involve 20.5 million workers each year. Another 19.9 million move between employment and nonemployment. There are large gains from working at a top-paying firm for all skill types. Working for a high-paying firm produces benefits today, through higher earnings, that persist through an increase in the probability of upward mobility. High-paying firms facilitate moving workers to the top of the distribution and keeping them there.

How does firm value change in response to a minimum wage hike? This paper exploits the announcement of a big change in the UK minimum wage that was both totally unanticipated and free of uncertainty. The stock market response to this is examined in an event study setting. The analysis uncovers significant falls in the stock market value of low-wage firms. In light of this finding, the paper concludes by discussing magnitudes of response, including longer-term modes of firm adjustment to the cost shock induced by the minimum wage hike.

Identifying policy-relevant treatment effects from randomized experiments requires the absence of spillovers between participants and nonparticipants (SUTVA) or variation in observed treatment levels. We find that SUTVA is violated for a Danish activation program for unemployed workers. Using a difference-in-differences model, we show that nonparticipants in the experiment regions find jobs more slowly after the introduction of the program than workers in other regions. We estimate an equilibrium search model to identify the policy-relevant treatment effect. A large-scale rollout of the program is shown to decrease welfare, while a standard partial microeconometric cost-benefit analysis concludes the opposite.

We study the migration behavior of displaced workers and find that job displacement increases regional mobility. We find, however, that noneconomic factors, such as family ties, are very important for the migration decision and that there is strong heterogeneity in outcomes. We find large income losses for workers who move to regions where they have family or to rural areas, while, for example, rural to urban movers realize a significant long-term earnings increase. We also find that life events related to fertility, divorce, and new relationships correlate with mobility after job loss and may partly explain the large income losses.