Recruitment Restrictions and Labor Markets: Evidence from the Postbellum U.S. South

By Suresh Naidu. Journal of Labor Economics, 2010

120 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b5ae5d36324508ad9f4d46bca3cc43750b56eae8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Richard A. Hornbeck
2. Shing-Yi B. Wang
3. Henry S. Farber
4. Suresh Naidu
5. Michael R Ransom
6. O. Ashenfelter
7. Joan Monras
8. Douglas A. Webber

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Richard A. Hornbeck
2. Shing-Yi B. Wang
3. Henry S. Farber
4. Suresh Naidu
5. Joan Monras

Citations in the corpus

• Labor Market Monopsony (2010, background): “Naidu (2010) examines an institution in southern U.S. states in the postbellum period—anti-enticement laws.”
• When the Levee Breaks: Black Migration and Economic Development in the American South (2012, background): “illegal for one planter to hire another planter’s workers, while anti-vagrancy laws made it illegal to be unemployed and without housing (Naidu, 2010).”
• Monopsony Power in Migrant Labor Markets: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates (2016, background): “Historically, restrictive labor market contracts were commonplace for indentured migrant workers (Galenson 1984; Abramitzky and Braggion 2006) and existed in domestic labor markets (Naidu 2010; Naidu and Yuchtman 2013).”