Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Gentzkow, Jesse Shapiro (2008)
Preschool Television Viewing and Adolescent Test Scores: Historical Evidence from the Coleman StudyQuarterly Journal of Economics, 123
J. Hunt (1996)
Has Work-Sharing Worked in Germany?NBER Working Paper Series
M Chemin, E Wasmer (2009)
Using Alsace-Moselle local laws to build a difference-in-differences estimation strategy of the employment effects of the 35-hour workweek regulation in FranceJ Labor Econ, 27
J. Angrist, A. Krueger (1998)
Empirical Strategies in Labor EconomicsHandbook of Labor Economics, 3
John Pencavel, B. Holmlund (1988)
The Determination of Wages, Employment, and Work Hours in an Economy with Centralised Wage-Setting: Sweden, 1950-83The Economic Journal, 98
W Franz, H Konig (1986)
The nature and causes of unemployment in the Federal Republic of Germany since the 1970s: an empirical investigationEconomica, 53
(1986)
The nature and causes of unemployment in the Federal Republic of Germany
Daiji Kawaguchi, Hisahiro Naito, Izumi Yokoyama (2017)
Assessing the effects of reducing standard hours: Regression discontinuity evidence from JapanJournal of The Japanese and International Economies, 43
(2006)
Identification and inference in nonlinear difference - in - differences models
O. Skans (2004)
The impact of working-time reductions on actual hours and wages: evidence from Swedish register-dataLabour Economics, 11
(2010)
How working time reduction affects employment and earning
R. Hart, T. Sharot (1978)
The Short-run Demand for Workers and Hours: A Recursive ModelThe Review of Economic Studies, 45
JJ Heckman, R LaLonde, JA Smith (1999)
Handbook of labor economics
J Hunt (1999)
Has work-sharing worked in Germany?Q J Econ, 114
Myoung‐jae Lee, Changhui Kang (2006)
Identification for difference in differences with cross-section and panel dataEconomics Letters, 92
G. Brunello (1989)
The Employment Effects of Shorter Working Hours: An Application to Japanese DataEconomica, 56
Matthieu Chemin, Étienne Wasmer (2009)
NORC at the University of Chicago The University of Chicago Using Alsace ‐ Moselle Local Laws to Build a Difference ‐ in ‐ Differences Estimation Strategy of the Employment Effects of the 35 ‐ Hour Workweek Regulation in France
Alberto Abadie (2005)
Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences EstimatorsThe Review of Economic Studies, 72
J. Heckman, R. Lalonde, Jeffrey Smith (1999)
The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labor Market ProgramsHandbook of Labor Economics, 3
Myoung‐jae Lee (2016)
Matching, Regression Discontinuity, Difference in Differences, and Beyond
J Angrist, JS Pischke (2009)
Mostly harmless econometrics
Matthew Kotchen, Laura Grant (2008)
Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in IndianaReview of Economics and Statistics, 93
(2006)
The costs of wrongful - discharge laws
Hans Fricke (2017)
Identification Based on Difference‐In‐Differences Approaches with Multiple TreatmentsEconometrics: Econometric & Statistical Methods - General eJournal
Myoung‐jae Lee (2016)
Generalized Difference in Differences With Panel Data and Least Squares EstimatorSociological Methods & Research, 45
K. Monstad, C. Propper, K. Salvanes (2008)
Education and Fertility: Evidence from a Natural ExperimentERN: Experimental Economics (Topic)
In the usual difference in differences (DD), there is a control group that is never treated and a treatment group that is treated at some time point. However, there are DD cases where the control group is always treated (instead of always untreated), which we call ‘DD in reverse (DDR)’. This paper examines how the usual DD identification and estimation procedures change for DDR. As it turns out, DDR estimation can be performed in the same way as DD estimation. In contrast, the identification procedure is quite different, because DDR essentially identifies pre-treatment-period effects, whereas DD identifies post-treatment-period effects. An empirical illustration of the effects of a work-hour limit law on actual work hours and wages is provided, where the law is applied to large firms first and then small firms 1 year later in South Korea so that in the second year, the large firms constitute the always-treated control group and the small firms constitute the treatment group. We find that the law raised South Korean workers’ well-being, as their work hours decreased while their real weekly wage increased.
Empirical Economics – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 5, 2018
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.