MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982486692 · doi:10.1108/ijm-10-2018-0361

Minimum wage impacts on wages, employment and hours in China

2019· article· en· W2982486692 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Manpower · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsWagePropensity score matchingEconomicsDemographic economicsLabour economicsPopulationChinaDemographyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to estimate the causal effect of minimum wages (MWs) on the wages, employment and hours of migrant workers in China, and to show their inter-relatedness and how employers can offset some of the costs through subtle adjustments. This paper also illustrates the importance of disaggregating by region and sex. Design/methodology/approach Causal estimates are provided through difference-in-differences (DID) analysis, and robustness checks through propensity score matching. The analysis is based on micro data at the individual level from the household survey on migrant workers by the National Population and Family Planning Commission, combined with macro data regarding municipalities’ population, GDP and employment information based on the China Economic Information Network database. Findings MW increases for those paid by the month increased the earnings of both low-wage males and females. However, males tend not to experience an adverse employment effect because part of the cost increase is offset by employers increasing their monthly hours of work. Hours of work do not increase for females, so they experience an adverse employment effect. This highlights the importance of examining cost offsets such as increases in hours of work, as well as analyzing effects separately for males and females. Research limitations/implications The reason behind why employers offset some of the cost increase for males paid by the month by increasing their hours of work, but this cost-offsetting adjustment does not occur for females is uncertain. Social implications For workers paid by the month, employers can offset some of the cost increase by increasing their hours of work, leading to no reductions in employment. But this adjustment occurs only for males. Hours are not increased for females, but they experience reductions in employment. Clearly, MW increases have adverse effects either in the form of employment reductions (for females) or increases in hours of work for the same monthly pay (for males). Originality/value This paper provides causal estimates through DID analysis and robustness checks through Propensity Score Matching, and also indicates how employers can offset the cost of MW increases by increasing hours for those paid by the month, resulting in no adverse employment effect for such workers, but an adverse employment effect when such an adjustment does not occur.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it