The costs of motherhood: An analysis using matching estimators

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 919-934

  Simonsen, Marianne ^a   Skipper, Lars ^b  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b Inst of Local Government Studies   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845680592     PISSN: 08837252     EISSN: 10991255     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jae.893     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Black DA, Smith JA. 2004. How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching. Journal of Econometrics 121: 99-124.
2. Budig MJ, England P. 2001. The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review 66: 204-225.
3. Butcher K, Case A. 1994. The effect of sibling composition on women's education and earnings. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 531-563.
4. Datta Gupta N, Smith N. 2002. Children and career interruptions: the family gap in Denmark. Economica 69: 609-629.
5. Ermisch J, Francesconi M. 2001. Family matters: the impact of family background on educational attainments. Economica 68: 137-156.
6. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd P. 1998. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65: 261-294.
7. Heckman J, LaLonde R, Smith JA. 1999. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3, Ashenfelten A, Card D (eds). Elsevier Science: Amsterdam; 1865-2097.
8. Korenman S, Neumark D. 1992. Marriage, motherhood, and wages. Journal of Human Resources 27: 233-255.
9. Lechner M. 2001. Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In Econometric Evaluation of Labour Market Policies, Lechner M, Pfeiffer F (eds). Physica/Springer: Heidelberg; 43-58.
10. Lechner M. 2002. Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods. Journal of Royal Statistical Society 165(1): 59-82.
11. Munch JR. 2003. Do municipality taxes and service affect settlement? (Har Kommunal Skat og Service Betydning for Flyttemønstrene). Danish Journal of Economics (Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift) 141: 53-67.
12. Nielsen HS, Simonsen M, Verner M. 2004. Does the gap in family-friendly policies drive the family gap? Scandinavian Journal of Economics 106: 721-744.
13. Phipps S, Burton P, Lethbridge L. 2001. In and out of the labour market: long-term income consequences of child-related interruptions to women's paid work. Canadian Journal of Economics 34: 411-429.
14. Robins JM, Greenland S. 1992. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3: 143-155.
15. Robinson PM. 1988. Root-N-consistent semiparametric regression. Econometrica 56: 931-954.
16. Rosenbaum PR. 1984. The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 147: 656-666.
17. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41-55.
18. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. 1985. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician 39: 33-38.
19. Shaikh AM, Simonsen M, Yildiz N, Vytlacil EJ. 2005. On the identification of misspecified propensity scores. Mimeo, Stanford University.
20. Silverman BW. 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC: London.
21. Simonsen M, Skipper L. 2004. Identifying direct and indirect effects: estimating the costs of motherhood using matching estimators. SIEPR working paper; 3-23.
22. Waldfogel J. 1998a. The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: can maternity leave make a difference? Journal of Labor Economics 16: 505-545.
23. Waldfogel J. 1998b. Understanding the 'family gap' in pay for women with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 137-156.