Empirical Matching Functions: Estimation and Interpretation Using State-Level Data
By P. Anderson, Simon Burgess. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2000
132 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fba13c7c09c3b710a9c6f628114a8c71610cd1c9
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
- M. Stevens
- Christopher Pissarides
- Grégory Jolivet
- F. Postel-Vinay
- Daniel Borowczyk-Martins
- Barbara Petrongolo
- Robert R. Reed
- René Fahr
In Statistics and Probability
- Christopher Pissarides
- Barbara Petrongolo
- M. Stevens
- Robert R. Reed
- René Fahr
- Ping Wang
- Marcus Berliant
- Uwe Sunde
Citations in the corpus
- Did the Hartz Reforms Speed-Up the Matching Process? A Macro- Evaluation Using Empirical Matching Functions (2009, background): “The results obtained by regressing unemployment outflows on stocks of vacancies and unemployed have been criticized repeatedly on the grounds of compatibility of stocks and flows, and competition among different pools of searchers and vacancies (see Anderson and Burgess, 2000; Broersma and van Ours,”
- Looking into the black box: a survey of the matching function (2001, methodology): “…(90% of 104 regressions) Coles and Smith 1996 England and Wales 0.34 (10.6) 0.66 (16.0) 0.91 Berman 1997 Israel 0.29 (3.22) 0.39 (4.33) p = 0.07 0.67 Anderson and Burgess 2000 All new hires New hires from NE New hires from E 0.43 (2.4) 0.39 (2.2) 0.54 (1.1) 0.81 (4.0) 0.75 (3.8) 0.87 (1.6) p =…”
- Accounting for endogeneity in matching function estimation (2013, background): “Anderson and Burgess (2000), Fahr and Sunde (2005), Sunde (2007) and Jolivet (2009) quantify the bias arising from incomplete or imperfect input measurement.”
- Knowledge Exchange, Matching, and Agglomeration (2000, methodology): “Constructing the matching function from disaggregate individual-level U.S. data, Anderson and Burgess (2000) lend support to increasing returns in labor matching functions at the state level.”
- NEW MICROFOUNDATIONS FOR THE AGGREGATE MATCHING FUNCTION (2007, methodology): “In all their specifications they obtained a lower value for the unemployment elasticity than for the vacancy elasticity, as did Anderson and Burgess (2000), using US state-level data and a Cobb-Douglas specification.”