![]() ![]() Similarly, there might be self-selection of states in the passage of their fair employment practice laws and self-selection of establishments in their size, both of which could potentially reduce the comparability of the treatment and comparison groups.In the US, the most prevalent problem in employment was the rising cases of employment discrimination in the form of sex, age, color, origin, and religion (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017). In this study, individuals could have self-selected into employment at larger and smaller employers based on unobservable characteristics that are related to their labor market outcomes. Thus, the comparisons conducted in the study were between industries that were more and less covered before the 1972 EEOA.Įvidence produced by non-experimental studies is not as strong as that produced by an experimental design because subjects are not randomly assigned to treatment and comparison groups. ![]() For instance, the data reported only establishment size categories, so workers employed in establishments with fewer than 15 employees (who were not covered by the 1972 EEOA) were not distinguished in the data from those employed in establishments with 15 to 24 employees (who were covered). The study was a well-conducted non-experimental design, but there are shortcomings to using 1979 CPS data for defining the treatment and control groups. The earnings gap equation controlled for education, potential labor market experience, marital status, full- or part-time status, veteran status, central city residence, and metropolitan residence. The employment models controlled for region-specific industry effects, region-specific year effects, African American–white relative demographic characteristics, and pre-policy time trends in each industry group by region. Study outcomes included African American male employment share, African American–white male relative annual earnings, and African American–white male relative employment in broad occupational groups. The DDD model additionally compared differences between the 14 Southern states and other states. The DD and DDD models contrasted men working in industries with higher and lower employment in small establishments before and after 1972. Study participants were male workers ages 16 to 65. The study estimated difference-in-differences (DD) models and difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) models using data from the March, May, and October monthly CPS surveys from 1968 to 1980. Men who were likely working for small establishments in the 14 intervention states were newly covered by civil rights protections in 1972. Men who were likely working for small establishments were defined as men employed in industries in which more than half of the workers were in private sector establishments with 25 or fewer employees. Because employers’ size could not be directly observed, the author created three industry groupings based on the percentages of employees in each industry working in small establishments affected by the law. These other states typically had existing fair employment practice laws covering employers with fewer employees than those covered by the EEOA. The author compared this group with men likely working in larger establishments in these 14 states and men likely working for small establishments in other states, none of whom would be affected by the EEOA’s passage. The author aimed to identify the effects of the 1972 EEOA by examining men who were likely working for small establishments (that is, establishments with 25 or fewer employees) in 14 mostly Southern states that did not have state fair employment practice laws covering employers in small establishments in 1972. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |