
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1329554
handle: 10419/35750
This paper employs recently developed econometric models of marginal treatment effects to analyze the relevance of labor market comparative advantage and segmentation in the participation and earnings performance of workers in formal and informal jobs in Argentina. A novel household data set on informality and self-employment and information on labor inspections targeting informal work was collected for this purpose. We account for endogeneity and selectivity issues in our estimations. Our results offer evidence for both comparative advantage and segmentation. No significant differences between the earnings of formal salaried workers and the self-employed are found, once accounted for positive selection bias into formal work. This is consistent with labor market comparative advantage considerations. On the contrary, informal salaried employment carries significant earnings penalties, alongside negative selection bias and modest positive sorting. These results are more consistent with segmentation.
labor markets, Informeller Sektor, Wettbewerbsvorteil, comparative advantage, J24, Berufswahl, Dualer Arbeitsmarkt, J31, C31, marginal treatment effects, occupational choice, segmentation, earnings, comparative advantage, informality, labor markets, ddc:330, segmentation, O17, occupational choice, informality, Argentinien, Einkommen, J42, Marginal treatment effects, earnings, Schätzung, jel: jel:J42, jel: jel:J24, jel: jel:C31, jel: jel:J31, jel: jel:O17
labor markets, Informeller Sektor, Wettbewerbsvorteil, comparative advantage, J24, Berufswahl, Dualer Arbeitsmarkt, J31, C31, marginal treatment effects, occupational choice, segmentation, earnings, comparative advantage, informality, labor markets, ddc:330, segmentation, O17, occupational choice, informality, Argentinien, Einkommen, J42, Marginal treatment effects, earnings, Schätzung, jel: jel:J42, jel: jel:J24, jel: jel:C31, jel: jel:J31, jel: jel:O17
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
