I am being told that George Borjas still does not understand—or at least says he does not understand—the force of this critique. Can that possibly be true?: Michael A. Clemens and Jennifer Hunt: The Labor Market Effects of Refugee Waves: Reconciling Conflicting Results: "The fraction of blacks is much higher in the post- than pre-Boatlift years in Borjas’s Miami sample...

...while there is no such difference in Card’s Miami sample... nor in the control cities favored by either Card or Borjas.... Reasons for the compositional change... the 1980 arrival of black Haitians with less than high school and improved survey coverage of low-wage black males.... Because both... had lower wages than other workers with less than high school, this compositional change tends to produce a spurious fall in average wages for workers with less than high school. Our reanalysis of Borjas’s sample with an adjustment for the share of blacks yields results similar to those of Card (1990) and Peri and Yasenov (2017): little to no wage impact of the Mariel Boatlift is discernable....

Second, we show that the Borjas and Monras (2017) applications of instrumental variables... give[s] similar results to the original studies after a specification correction.... The instrument used by Borjas and Monras... gives results that can be reproduced with a placebo instrument... [of] white noise.... This is a consequence of spurious correlation between the instrument and the endogenous variable introduced by applying a common divisor to both (Bazzi and Clemens 2013). The problem is addressed with a specification correction that builds on Kronmal’s (1993), after which otherwise identical methods give the same results as the original instrumental-variable studies...


#shouldread

Comments