The persistence of informality: Evidence from panel data

Research in Labor Economics

Volumn 34, Issue , 2012, Pages 229-255

  Akay, Alpaslan ^a   Khamis, Melanie ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Informality; State dependence; Transition country; Unobserved individual effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887428758     PISSN: 01479121     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1108/S0147-9121(2012)0000034010     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Akay, A. (2011). Finite sample comparison of alternative methods for estimating dynamic panel data models. Journal of Applied Econometrics. doi:10.1002/jae.1254
2. Alessie, R., Hochguertel, S., & van Soest, A. (2004). Ownership of stocks and mutual funds: A panel data analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 783-796
3. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297
4. Arias, O., & Khamis, M. (2008). Comparative advantage, segmentation and informal earnings: A marginal treatment effects approach. IZA Discussion Paper no. 3916
5. Arulampalam, W., & Stewart, M. (2009). Simplified implementation of then Heckman estimator of the dynamic probit model and a comparison with alternative estimators. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71, 659-681
6. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143
7. Chamberlain, G. (1984). Panel data. In Z. Griliches & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 2, pp. 1247-1320). Amsterdam: North Holland
8. De Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2010). Who are the microenterprise owners? Evidence from Sri Lanka and Tokman v. de Soto. In J. Lerner & A. Schoar (Eds.), International differences in entrepreneurship. NBER Conference Report, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
9. De Soto, H. (1989). The other path-The invisible revolution in the third world. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd Publishers
10. Dohmen, T., Khamis, M., & Lehmann, H. (2011). Risk attitudes and the incidence of informality among workers. Manuscript. Unpublished Working Paper
11. Heckman, J. J. (1978). Simple statistical models for discrete panel data developed and applied to test the hypothesis of true state dependence against the hypothesis of spurious state dependence. Annales de l.INSEE, 30-31, 227-269
12. Heckman, J. J. (1981a). Heterogeneity and state dependence. In S. Rosen (Ed.), Studies in labor markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
13. Heckman, J. J. (1981b). The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process. In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete panel data with econometric applications (pp. 179-196). Cambridge: MIT Press
14. Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
15. Kanbur, R. (2009). Conceptualizing informality: Regulation and enforcement. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 52, 33-42
16. Lehmann, H., & Pignatti, N. (2007). Informal employment and labor market segmentation in transition economies: Evidence from Ukraine. IZA Discussion Paper no. 3269
17. Levy, S. (2008). Good intentions, bad outcomes: Social policy, informality and economic growth in Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press
18. Maloney, W. F. (2004). Informality revisited. World Development, 32, 1159-1178
19. Stewart, M. (2007). The interrelated dynamics of unemployment and low-wage unemployment. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 511-531
20. Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel-data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39-54
21. World Bank. (2007). Informality: Exit and exclusion. Washington D.C.: The World Bank