Conclusions

The goal of this chapter was to determine what impact state-level disability legislation has had on the employment, wage, and hours out-

Table 6.4 Employment and Part-Time Employment Bivariate Probit with Selection Results, CPS, 1981-1991

Regressor

Employment equation

Part-time employment equation

disable = 1

-0.1311***

0.3406***

(0.0498)

(0.0462)

post legislation = 1

-0.0280*

0.0208*

(0.0165)

(0.0118)

disable x post = 1

0.0129

0.0828A

(0.0654)

(0.0582)

Rho

0.7707***

(0.0169)

Log-likelihood

-54,402

Number of observations

101,584

NOTE: States included in the analysis are Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Re-gressors included both in the employment and part-time employment equations (but not reported here) include age, education, region, race, gender, marital status, and central city residence indicator. Regressors unique to the employment equation include the state unemployment rate and the number of weeks worked last year. Re-gressors unique to the part-time employment equation include occupation and industry dummies, nonlabor income, and a government employer indicator. Standard errors are in parentheses.

*** = significant at the 99 percent confidence level. * = significant at the 90 percent confidence level. A = significant at the 85 percent confidence level.

NOTE: States included in the analysis are Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Re-gressors included both in the employment and part-time employment equations (but not reported here) include age, education, region, race, gender, marital status, and central city residence indicator. Regressors unique to the employment equation include the state unemployment rate and the number of weeks worked last year. Re-gressors unique to the part-time employment equation include occupation and industry dummies, nonlabor income, and a government employer indicator. Standard errors are in parentheses.

*** = significant at the 99 percent confidence level. * = significant at the 90 percent confidence level. A = significant at the 85 percent confidence level.

comes of disabled workers. The question is whether the ADA is redundant with laws passed at the state level. The results indicate that the state-level legislation operates on the labor market in the same way as does the federal ADA. Namely, relative employment probabilities of persons with disabilities are not affected by state-level disability legislation. It was also found that labor force participation rates were unaffected by the state-level legislation, lending support for the theory that the decline in labor force participation rates observed post-ADA at the national level was not ADA-induced. In addition, the disabled also experienced a relative wage decline and a tentative rise in relative parttime employment at the state level following legislation.

The main implication of these results is that the lack of impact of the ADA on employment, while perhaps disappointing to proponents, is consistent with the contention that this type of legislation arrives after society has already adopted its main principles, both at the na tional and the state level. On the other hand, observing similar wage and hours effects in states and nationally indicates that the wage and hours impacts of the ADA would likely have been greater in magnitude had the disabled not already partially experienced the impact of protective legislation at the state level. The analyses in this chapter clearly indicate that state-level disability legislation did not fully crowd out the impact of the ADA (not at all regarding employment, and potentially only partially regarding wages and hours). Can we conclude, then, that the ADA was redundant? The answer is ''no.'' There was no employment effect to crowd out (no employment effect at the national level), and there was still a measurable impact on wages and hours at the national level. In addition, the federal legislation served as a mechanism to instill uniformity of expectations of employers (even though some state laws have a broader definition of coverage), and it brought the issue of discrimination against disabled workers to the national forefront.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment