Did Right-To-Work Laws Impact Income Inequality? Evidence from U.S. States Using the Synthetic Control Method-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Did Right-To-Work Laws Impact Income Inequality? Evidence from U.S. States Using the Synthetic Control Method

Published:2020-08-10 Issue:1 Volume:21 Page:45-81
ISSN:1935-1682
Container-title:The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Jordan Jeffrey¹,Mathur Aparna²,Munasib Abdul³,Roy Devesh⁴

Affiliation:

1. Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics , University of Georgia , 206 Stuckey Building, 1109 Experiment Street , Griffin , GA , 30223 , USA

2. Resident Scholar , American Enterprise Institute , 1789 Massachusetts Avenue , Washington , DC , 20036 , USA

3. Economist, Research and Methodology Group (RMG), International Directorate, Bureau of Economic Analysis , U.S. Department of Commerce , 4600 Silver Hill Road , Suitland , MD , 20746, USA

4. Senior Research Fellow, Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) , International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) , 1301 I Street NW , Washington , DC , USA

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, we use the Synthetic Control Method (SCM) to examine the impact of a state’s adoption of a Right-To-Work (RTW) law on income inequality. We explore possible pathways through which RTW laws may impact inequality, namely, unionization, investment, and wages. Our finding of a lack of impact of RTW laws on inequality is further supported by findings of a lack of impact of the law on these variables. Our results follow Farber (1984), who suggests that RTW laws may simply mirror pre-existing preferences against union representation. Hence RTW laws are not the primary driver of changes in inequality.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Economics and Econometrics

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0299/pdf

Reference47 articles.

1. Abadie, A., A. Diamond, and J. Hainmueller. 2014. “Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method,” First published online: 23 APR 2014. American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12116.

2. Abadie, A., A. Diamond, and J. Hainmueller. 2010. “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105: 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746.

3. Acemoglu, D., P. Aghion, and G. Violante. 2001. “Technical Change, Deunionization, and Inequality.” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 55 (1): 229–64.

4. Alvaredo, F., A. B. Atkinson, T. Piketty, and E. Saez. 2013. “The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspective.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/41955542.

5. Bertrand, M., E. Duflo, and S. Mullainathan. 2004. “How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 249–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Right‐to‐Work revisited;Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society;2023-12-22

2. Economic zones and local income inequality: Evidence from Indonesia;The Journal of Economic Inequality;2023-05-31

3. Economic freedom improves income mobility: evidence from Canadian provinces, 1982–2018;Journal of Institutional Economics;2021-11-29