This article investigates cyclicality in real wages between 1969 and 1982, using Panel Study of Income Dynamics data. There is little evidence that movements in and out of the labor market induced aggregate wage cyclicality during these years. However, cyclicality in the movement of workers between heterogeneous labor-market sectors affected aggregate wage cyclicality. While sector location is important, sector selectivity is not correlated with wages. Yet, even within sectors, cyclicality is present in real wages over this time period and is the result of cyclicality in overall wage levels, as well as in the coefficients associated with particular worker characteristics.

This paper explores the differential nature of labor-supply decisions regarding weeks of work per year and hours of work per week among female household heads. A model of labor supply that separates the weeks/hours decision is presented and estimated, allowing for simultaneity in the weeks/hours decision, as well as for the presence of either fixed costs or weeks and hours constraints. The results indicate that not only are weeks and hours decisions separate from the labormarket participation decision, but they are also quite different from each other, although they appear to be simultaneously determined.

This paper reviews the economic literature on welfare reform over the 1990s. A brief summary of the policy changes is followed by a discussion of the methodological techniques that analyze the effects of these changes on outcomes. The paper then critically reviews the econometric and experimental literature on caseload changes, labor force changes, poverty and income changes, and family formation changes. A growing body of evidence suggests that recent policy changes have influenced economic behavior and well-being. One particular set of "new-style" welfare programs seems to show especially promising results, with significantly increased work and earnings and reduced poverty.

This paper reviews the economics literature on welfare reform over the 1990s. A brief summary of the policy changes over this period is followed by a discussion of the methodological techniques utilized to analyze the effects of these changes on outcomes. The paper then critically reviews the econometric and experimental literature on caseload changes, labor force changes, poverty and income changes, and family formation changes. A growing body of evidence suggests that the recent policy changes have influenced economic behavior and well-being in a variety of ways. One particular set of "new-style" welfare programs seems to show especially promising results, with significantly increased work and earnings and reduced poverty.

The results from a randomized experiment conducted at the American Economic Review on the effects of double-blind versus single-blind peer reviewing on acceptance rates and referee rating indicate that acceptance rates are lower and referees are more critical when the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity. These patterns are not significantly different between female and male authors. Authors at top-ranked universities and at colleges and low-ranked universities are largely unaffected by the different reviewing practices, but the authors at near-top-ranked universities and at nonacademic institutions have lower acceptance rates under double-blind reviewing.

economic outcomes. This literature typically focuses on investigating whether there are racespecific effects present for a particular outcome (years of school, hiring, loan applications) within a particular domain (education, labor markets, housing markets) at a particular point in time. In this paper, I discuss the need to model and measure the cumulative effects of discrimination. For simplicity, I talk about black/white racial differences, but the discussion can be applied to other group comparisons. The paper builds on the discussion of cumulative discrimination found in Blank et al. (2004). Cumulative discrimination is the measure-

The results from a randomized experiment conducted at The American Economic Review on the effects of double-blind versus single-blind peer reviewing on acceptance rates and referee ratings indicate that acceptance rates are lower and referees are more critical when the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity. These patterns are not significantly different between female and male authors. Authors at top-ranked universities and at colleges and low-ranked universities are largely unaffected by the different reviewing practices, but authors at near-top-ranked universities and at nonacademic institutions have lower acceptance rates under double-blind reviewing.

At any point in time over the last decade, approximately 37 percent of nonelderly adult women were not employed, while 18 percent worked part-time and 45 percent worked full time. While much research has explored the static labor market participation and hours decisions of women,1 there has been almost no exploration of how the pattern of labor market involvement varies among individual women over time. Is there one group of women who always work full time, and another that is always out of the labor market? Or do most individual women move between different levels of labor market involvement over time? Part-time work may be particularly important in labor market dynamics. It has been suggested that part-time work provides a bridge or a stepping-stone into fulltime employment for women who have been absent from the labor market. Yet, knowing little about the dynamics of individual labor supply, we do not know if most part-timers are in that state transitionally, or if they are permanently involved in part-time work. This paper focuses on labor market changes over a nine-year period among a sample of adult women. The questions it addresses are: 1) What are the patterns of labor market involvement that we find among individual women over time? 2) What role does part-time work play in the dynamic patterns of women's labor market involvement, and is there evidence that part-time work is a more transitional category than full-time work or nonwork? 3) What factors induce women to move between part-time work, full-time work, and nonwork?