1. Also see Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1989) for additional information.
2. Methodologies that take advantage of differing legislative statuses among states (or, more generally, across observations) have often been referred to as ''natural experiments'' and have been applied by a number of researchers. For example, see Chay (1996) and Carrington, McCue, and Pierce (2000).
3. The strategy described here can be likened to a differences-in-differences (DD) methodology but is applied to a nonlinear statistical model. While this type of pooled, cross-sectional analysis has been used by many researchers (for example, Card 1992; Gruber 1994 and 1996; Zveglich and Rodgers 1996; and Hamermesh and Trejo 2000), the technique also has its critics (such as Heckman 1996). The primary criticism of this approach is that it is impossible to control for unobserved changes in the environment that occurred at the same time as the event of interest. The concern is mitigated in the analysis in this chapter, however, by the fact that the post-legislation period varies across states.
4. Also, similar to the approach in Chapter 4, an additional analysis was performed to determine whether, as at the national level, there was a marked increase in voluntary part-time employment, but the results were inconclusive. The coefficient on the interaction disable x post term was not significantly different from zero, and the adjusted R2 was only 0.08.
Was this article helpful?