Minimum wages effects on low-skilled workers in less developed regions of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to estimate the causal effect of minimum wages on the employment of low-skilled workers in less developed regions of China. Design/methodology/approach Based on data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey, a double-difference (DD) methodology is used to compare the employment of low-skilled individuals before and after a minimum wage increase in their provinces with a comparison group of individuals in provinces that did not have a minimum wage increase. Also, a triple-difference methodology (DDD) is used that also includes an additional control group of highly educated workers as a within-province internal comparison group that should not be affected by a minimum wage increase. Findings No evidence of an adverse employment effect is found in any of the 36 different estimates, consistent with recent US evidence that uses a similar DD methodology. Research limitations/implications The data are not national representative; rather heavily weighted towards the less developed Central, Western and parts of the Eastern Regions of China. This may partially explain the absence of the theoretically expected adverse employment effect. Other related reasons are discussed, including: lack of enforcement in those less developed regions; a large presence of state-owned enterprises in the regions where employment security clause remains intact; the relatively less developed labour markets in the regions including where employers may behave in a monopsony fashion in their labour markets; shock effects; and cost offsets from reduced fringe benefits and increases in the pace of work. This paper was unable to disentangle the separate effect of these possible factors. Originality/value This is one of the few studies on minimum wages in China to focus on low-skilled workers in less developed regions, to use individuals as the unit of observation rather than aggregates, and to provide causal estimates based on DD and DDD methodologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".