Borrowing Constraints and the Returns to Schooling

By Stephen V. Cameron, Chris Taber. 2000

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/403b7e39bc33ec215ee9052de2d989b967a59a8e

Citations in the corpus

• Educational Choices, Subjective Expectations, and Credit Constraints. NBER Working Paper No. 15087. (2009, unknown): “cation. Cameron and Heckman (1998) , Cameron and Heckman (2001) and Carneiro and Heckman”
• Semiparametric identification and heterogeneity in discrete choice dynamic programming models (2000, unknown): “The model I estimate is a modi"ed version of the speci"cation developed in Cameron and Taber (1998) and details about the data can be found there.”
• The Evidence on Credit Constraints in Post-Secondary Schooling (2002, unknown): “Cameron and Taber (2001) examine the importance of borrowing constraints in a model that incorporates the insight that both schooling choices and returns to schooling will be influenced by borrowing constraints.”
• The long-run labour market consequences of teenage motherhood in Britain (2000, unknown): “Cameron and Taber (2000) propose to regress the instrument on the exogenous variables to provide support for the use of the instrument.”
• Conditional Cash Transfers and School Dropout Rates (2009, unknown): “Papers exploring whether liquidity constraints are important for educational outcomes include Keane and Wolpin (1997), Cameron and Heckman (1998), Cameron and Taber (2000), Carneiro and Heckman (2002), and Dale and Krueger (2002). difference between these two estimates is not statistically…”
• Human Capital Policy (2003, unknown): “Cameron and Taber (2000) examine the empirical importance of borrowing constraints in a model that incorporates the insight that both schooling choices and returns to schooling will be inßuenced by borrowing constraints.”
• Economic Interpretations of Intergenerational Correlations (2002, unknown): “Other studies have looked for, and failed to nd, differences in returns to schooling across parental income groups (see reviews by Cameron and Heckman, 1999; Cameron and Taber, 2000; or Card, 1999, for an opposing view).”
• Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation (2005, unknown): “Restriction (25) is what Aiyagari (1994) calls the natural borrowing limit.”
• Income Contingent Loans for Higher Education: International Reforms (2006, unknown): “Recent important attempts to disentangle these relationships are found in Cameron and Taber (2001) and Carneiro and Heckman (2002).”
• Workplace Training in Europe (2005, unknown): “On the contrary, Carneiro and Heckman, 2004, and Cameron and Taber, 2000, argue that there is no relationship between family income and educational outcomes and that, after controlling for ability, differences in returns among groups of individuals vanish.”
• Understanding the Income Gradient in College Attendance in Mexico: The Role of Heterogeneity in Expected Returns (2014, unknown): “Cameron and Taber (2004), Card (1995) and Kling (2001) use a similar test interacting variables such as parental income and race with a dummy for the presence of a college in the residential county.17 Compared to conventional approaches, data on subjective expectations has the following two…”
• Dynamic Female Labor Supply (2009, unknown): “…1997, 2006; Eckstein and Wolpin 1999; and Ge, 2008) found that the initial characteristics of the individual (at age 16 or 18) are the main factors that determine the schooling choice.12 This is also how schooling choice is explained in Heckman and Cameron (1998, 2001) and Cameron and Taber (2004).”
• Interpreting Instrumental Variables Estimates of the Returns to Schooling (2001, unknown): “Other recent research using the NLSY79 has come to the same substantive conclusion about these interactions (Cameron and Taber 2000). For the overall first stage relationship, the indicator for college-in-county is only associated with 0.08 years of additional schooling in the NLSY79 (with a standar”