where hij is a variable measuring some aspect of labor supply for person i in state j. Note
that the regression specification in (2) is identical to the one used in the previous section to
quantify the impact of welfare reform on health insurance coverage rates. The coefficient θ,
however, now measures the impact of the welfare cutbacks on the relative trend in immigrant
labor supply.
Table 7 reports the relevant regression coefficients from various specifications of the
model in Eq. (2). The estimated coefficients consistently show that the labor supply of
non-citizen men declined substantially in those states that were most generous with their
immigrant populations in the aftermath of PRWORA, even after controlling for differences
in a vast array of socioeconomic characteristics and state-specific factors. For example, the triple-difference coefficient measuring the impact of the welfare cutbacks on non-citizen
male labor force participation is 0.060 (with a standard error of 0.016); the coefficient
measuring the impact on log annual hours worked is 0.041 (0.058); and the coefficient
measuring the impact on the probability that the worker works a full-time week is 0.040
(0.022). In contrast, the triple-difference coefficient measuring the relative impact of the state
programs on the labor supply of citizen men is numerically closer to zero and statistically
insignificant. Finally, although the labor supply effects are (statistically) weaker for women,
the estimated coefficients suggest that hours of work for non-citizen women increased more
if they lived in states that were not generous to their immigrant populations in the aftermath
of PRWORA.
In sum, the reduced-form results reported in Table 8 strongly imply that the state-funded
assistance programs that were designed to attenuate the impact of welfare reform on immigrants
played an important influence in the labor supply decisions of immigrants.
where hij is a variable measuring some aspect of labor supply for person i in state j. Notethat the regression specification in (2) is identical to the one used in the previous section toquantify the impact of welfare reform on health insurance coverage rates. The coefficient θ,however, now measures the impact of the welfare cutbacks on the relative trend in immigrantlabor supply.Table 7 reports the relevant regression coefficients from various specifications of themodel in Eq. (2). The estimated coefficients consistently show that the labor supply ofnon-citizen men declined substantially in those states that were most generous with theirimmigrant populations in the aftermath of PRWORA, even after controlling for differencesin a vast array of socioeconomic characteristics and state-specific factors. For example, the triple-difference coefficient measuring the impact of the welfare cutbacks on non-citizenmale labor force participation is 0.060 (with a standard error of 0.016); the coefficientmeasuring the impact on log annual hours worked is 0.041 (0.058); and the coefficientmeasuring the impact on the probability that the worker works a full-time week is 0.040(0.022). In contrast, the triple-difference coefficient measuring the relative impact of the stateprograms on the labor supply of citizen men is numerically closer to zero and statisticallyinsignificant. Finally, although the labor supply effects are (statistically) weaker for women,the estimated coefficients suggest that hours of work for non-citizen women increased moreif they lived in states that were not generous to their immigrant populations in the aftermathof PRWORA.In sum, the reduced-form results reported in Table 8 strongly imply that the state-fundedassistance programs that were designed to attenuate the impact of welfare reform on immigrantsplayed an important influence in the labor supply decisions of immigrants.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..