Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Distribution Regression with Censored Selection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using a censored selection rule and a single binary instrument, the paper proves that wage–work-hours sorting is point identified at every hours threshold, and uses this to decompose the UK gender wage gap by worker type.

desk verdict A useful censored-selection extension of CFL with a real computation-theory gap in the smoothed Step 3 that needs attention before the inference results are fully trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10814 v1 pith:4Q7FGGTI submitted 2025-05-16 econ.EM stat.ME

Ivan Fernandez-Val , Seoyun Hong This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EMstat.ME MSC 62P2091B8262G0562F12
keywords distributionregressioncensoredselectionsamplelocalGaussianrepresentationsortingparametergenderwagegapworkhoursHeckmanmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that sample-selection problems—wages observed only for people who work—can be handled by a distribution regression model in which the selection rule is a censored continuous variable such as weekly work hours rather than a binary employment indicator. The central result is that, with a binary instrument satisfying exclusion restrictions at a single threshold (the censoring point), the entire sorting function that describes local dependence between latent desired hours and latent offered wage is point identified at every hours threshold. This matters because it turns a censored selection variable, which researchers routinely dichotomize, into a source of information about who selects into part-time, full-time, or overtime work and how that selection varies across the wage distribution. The paper also delivers a three-step estimator with multiplier-bootstrap uniform inference and an application to UK data showing that selection patterns differ sharply by gender, marital status, and worker type and that these selection effects shape the observed gender wage gap.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local Gaussian representation (LGR) of the joint CDF of the latent variables, $F_{S^*,Y^*}(s,y)=\Phi_2(\Phi^{-1}(F_{S^*}(s)), \Phi^{-1}(F_{Y^*}(y)); \rho(s,y))$, with local correlation parameter $\rho(s,y)$ measuring local dependence. The censored selection rule $S=\max(S^*,0)$ observable together with $Y=Y^*$ whenever $S>0$ turns the problem into one of recovering $\rho(s,y)$ at every threshold from the distribution of $(S,Y,Z)$. The load-bearing identity is equation (4), $\Pr(0<S\le s, Y\le y\mid Z=z) = \Phi_2(\mu_z(s), \nu(y); \rho_z(s,y)) - \Phi_2(\mu_z(s_0), \nu(y); \rho(s_0,y))$, whose left side is observed and whose right side is strictly increasing in $\rho_z(s,y)$, yielding point identification from a binary instrument. The estimator is a three-step procedure: probit regressions for each selection margin $\mu_z(s)$, a probit with sample-selection correction for $(\nu(y), \rho(s_0,y))$, and a bivariate probit for each remaining sorting parameter $\rho_z(s,y)$.

What would settle it

Using the observed data, one can solve the two-equation system at $s_0$ for each wage level $y$; if no solution exists with $\rho(s_0,y)\in[-1,1]$ for some $y$, the exclusion restrictions are rejected. If the instrument has more than two values, a minimum-distance test of the overidentifying restrictions directly tests Assumption 1; additionally, the estimated $\rho_z(s,y)$ from equation (4) must keep all implied joint probabilities in $[0,1]$ across thresholds, which the paper's Remark 1 shows can fail numerically—checking whether this happens at the estimated parameters, not just at starting values, would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the local Gaussian representation, the joint distribution of the latent selection variable $S^*$ and latent outcome $Y^*$ is written at every point $(s,y)$ as a bivariate normal CDF $\Phi_2(\mu(s), \nu(y); \rho(s,y))$, where the local correlation $\rho(s,y)$ is the sorting parameter that governs the sign and strength of selection. With the censored selection rule $S=\max(S^*,0)$ and $Y=Y^*$ if $S>0$, and a binary instrument $Z$ satisfying non-degeneracy, relevance, outcome exclusion, and sorting exclusion at $s_0$, the paper proves that the selection margins $\mu_z(s)$ are identified by the selection probabilities, the pair $(\nu(y), \rho(s_0,y))$ is the unique solution of a two-equation system at $s_0$, and then every other threshold $s\neq s_0$ yields $\rho_z(s,y)$ uniquely from equation (4) because $\Phi_2$ is strictly increasing in $\rho$. The paper calls the resulting model censored distribution regression, proves this identification as Theorem 1, provides a functional central limit theorem for the three-step estimator as Theorem 2, and bootstrap-uniform confidence bands as Theorem 3. On UK work-hours and wage data, it shows that sorting into full-time and overtime work is heterogeneous across gender, marital status, time, and wage quantile, patterns that a binary employment selection rule cannot reveal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the sorting exclusion restriction: at the censoring point (zero weekly hours), the local correlation between latent desired hours and offered wage is the same for both values of the out-of-work benefit instrument once covariates are controlled; if this fails, the outcome distribution and every sorting parameter are unidentified and all application estimates inherit the bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers who currently dichotomize censored selection variables—employment, program participation, unemployment duration—can recover the full selection-sorting function at every threshold using the same binary-instrument exclusion assumptions required by standard Heckman-type models.
  • Wage gaps can be decomposed by worker type: the paper's UK application separates composition, wage structure, hours structure, and hours-wage sorting, finding that hours structure and sorting narrow the low-quantile gender gap and widen the high-quantile gap for full-time workers, and that selection behavior explains most of the small overtime wage gap.
  • The model covers continuous, discrete, and mixed outcomes, extending distributional analysis beyond the mean or median and beyond Gaussian errors, unlike quantile selection models that require continuous outcomes.
  • Uniform confidence bands for the sorting function obtained by multiplier bootstrap allow testing functional hypotheses such as sorting being zero, non-negative, or constant across wage quantiles.
  • Because the exclusion restrictions are local to a single threshold $s_0$, the same design applies at any censoring or policy cutoff, such as the 34- and 40-hour thresholds used to define full-time and overtime work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The identification logic cascades: once $(\nu(y), \rho(s_0,y))$ is identified, each additional threshold contributes its own monotone equation, so adding a threshold costs only one more bivariate probit; this suggests a general multi-threshold selection design for settings like disability severity bins or loan-to-value cutoffs.
  • If the sorting exclusion at $s_0$ fails, the parameters are partially identified; bounding the local correlation would propagate bounds to $\rho(s,y)$ at all thresholds, yielding a sensitivity analysis that the paper does not develop.
  • The smoothing fix in Remark 1 for negative predicted probabilities implies the likelihood can be ill-behaved when selection is strong at nearby thresholds; a testable robustness check is to vary the smoothing threshold $\tau$ and report whether the estimated sorting function changes.
  • The application's finding that selection effects move the gender gap in opposite directions at low and high quantiles for full-time workers implies the binary selection model would report a sign of selection that is wrong at the top; comparing censored-DR and binary-DR estimates on the same UK data is a direct check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semiparametric distribution regression model with a censored selection rule, extending the binary-selection distribution regression of Chernozhukov, Fernández-Val, and Luo (CFL) to settings where the selection variable is censored rather than binary. The model is built on the local Gaussian representation (LGR) of the joint distribution of latent selection S* and latent outcome Y*, and identification is achieved through exclusion restrictions: an outcome exclusion restriction and a local sorting exclusion restriction at a point s0. The main theoretical contribution is Theorem 1, which proves point identification of the local sorting parameter ρz(s,y) for s≠s0 as the unique solution to equation (4); identification of the remaining parameters (ν(y),ρ(s0,y)) is imported from CFL. The authors propose a three-step estimation algorithm: probit for the selection margins, selection-corrected bivariate probit for the outcome margin and sorting at s0, and bivariate probit for the sorting parameter at each (s,y). They state a functional central limit theorem and a multiplier-bootstrap uniform inference procedure for the sorting function, and they apply the method to UK data to estimate selection sorting into full-time and overtime work and to decompose gender wage gaps by worker type.

Significance. If the theorems are correct, this is a useful and timely extension that lets researchers estimate selection sorting as a function of both the outcome and the level of the censored selection variable, rather than only a binary employment indicator. The clean monotonicity argument behind Theorem 1 is a genuine strength, and the paper provides explicit score and Hessian expressions together with a multiplier-bootstrap algorithm, which is valuable for applied work. The LGR is a representation rather than a testable restriction, so I do not see the circularity concern raised by the reader as an internal inconsistency; the substantive content comes from the stated exclusion restrictions. The empirical application illustrates the new objects and reports decomposition results that are interpretable and policy-relevant. However, two technical issues must be resolved before the reported confidence bands can be taken at face value: the implemented smoothing in Step 3 is outside the asymptotic theory, and the proof of the FCLT does not establish a key uniform lower bound on the denominators appearing in the scores and Hessians.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Remark 1; Section 3.4; Appendix B] The implemented Step 3 in Remark 1 replaces every model probability p by f(p) whenever p<τ, and f'(p) is not equal to 1 in that region. The asymptotic theory in Section 3.4 and Appendix B is derived for the maximizer of the unmodified likelihood L3(ρsy,ηsy), whose score S3sy in (10) uses denominators A1–A4. If any observation has a predicted probability below τ at the true parameters, at the final estimates, or along the bootstrap draws, the implemented estimator solves different first-order conditions, and the influence function (14), the matrices H3sy and J3sy, and the bootstrap bands no longer describe the reported estimator. The paper reports no value of τ, no diagnostic on how many observations are affected at the final estimates or across the 500 bootstrap repetitions, and the simulation remark concerns only negative probabilities rather than positive probabilities in (0,τ). Since the sorting function and its uniform confidence bands are the paper's main claimed contribution, this is a load-bearing gap between computation and theory. The authors should either set τ=0, or extend the asymptotic theory to cover the transformed objective and provide diagnostics showing that the set of affected observations is negligible, or show sensitivity of the empirical conclusions to τ.
  2. [Appendix A, Step 2; Assumption 2; equation (10)] The proof of Theorem 2 requires uniform boundedness of the quantities (Ã1,Ã2,Ã3,Ã4) used as denominators in the scores and Hessians. The verification in Step 2 asserts that these are bounded uniformly, but no lower bound is established. Assumption 2 only imposes upper bounds on conditional densities and compactness of parameter and support sets; it does not rule out A1=Φ2(Z'μs,X'νy;g(Z'ρsy)) or A3=Φ2(Z'μ0,X'νy;g(X'ρ0y))−Φ2(Z'μs,X'νy;g(Z'ρsy)) approaching zero as z approaches the boundary of its support or as y approaches the boundary of Y. Without a uniform lower bound of the form inf_{z∈Z1} min_j A_j > c > 0 on SY, the quantities H3sy, J3sy, and the influence function ψ3sy are not well-defined, and the FCLT in Theorem 2 is not established. This needs to be stated as an assumption or proved from the existing assumptions.
  3. [Section 2.2, Assumption 1(4)] The sorting exclusion restriction ρz(s0,y)=ρ(s0,y) is the key identifying assumption for (ν(y),ρ(s0,y)), and through equation (4) it also underpins identification of every ρz(s,y) for s≠s0. With a binary instrument the restriction is not testable, and the paper's justification—that the widely used HSM satisfies the analogous restriction—is a plausibility argument rather than direct evidence. If this assumption fails, the sorting estimates and all wage decompositions in Section 4 inherit the bias. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis (for example, estimates under alternative choices of s0 or under a model that relaxes the restriction), discuss what is partially identified without it, or report an overidentification check if more than two values of Z are available. This is a limitation rather than an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the empirical conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, page 3] There is a typo: 'Fisher trasnformation' should read 'Fisher transformation'.
  2. [Section 3.1, equation (5)] The notation is confusing: z'ν(y) is used in the outcome equation but then z'ν(y)=x'ν(y) is given as the exclusion restriction. The authors should define z=(x',z1')' explicitly and state which coefficients are set to zero under the exclusion restrictions.
  3. [Section 3.4, Theorem 2] In the display following Theorem 2, the symbol ';Zρsy' appears where a weak-convergence arrow (⇝ or ⇒) is intended; this should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.2, Figure 3] The x-axis labels in Figure 3 include the R expression 'seq(0.1, 0.9, 0.01)'; the axis should simply be labeled 'Wage quantile index'.
  5. [Section 4.3.1 and Appendix C] The text refers to 'Figures 9 and 10 in the Appendix C', but Appendix C contains Figures 10 and 11; the cross-reference is incorrect.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the censored-selection DR identification is a genuine monotonicity inversion and the sorting parameters are estimated by likelihood, not read back from fitted constants.

full rationale

The paper's new identification result (Theorem 1) proves uniqueness of rho_z(s,y) by strict monotonicity of Phi2 in its correlation parameter (Appendix A.1), after the marginals and rho(s0,y) are identified; the observed probability in (4) is data and the parameter is solved by inversion, so no output equation reduces to an input equation. The LGR (Lemma 1 from CFL) is a parameter-free mathematical identity - for any joint CDF value inside the Frechet bounds there is a Gaussian-copula rho reproducing it - so citing it is not circular. The paper explicitly imports the binary-selection identification of (nu(y), rho(s0,y)) from CFL (Section 2.2), a prior work with overlapping authorship; however, CFL's assumptions do not include the present target (sorting at s>s0), the new Step 3 likelihood and FCLT are derived in the paper, and the self-citation is cumulative support rather than a premise equaling the conclusion. The empirical sorting functions and decompositions are maximum-likelihood estimates of model functionals, not predictions forced by fitted constants. Remark 1's smoothing transformation may create a gap between the implemented Step-3 objective and the asymptotic theory, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central empirical claims are identified only under exclusion restrictions that are strong and untestable; the main hand-chosen constants are the worker-type thresholds and the smoothing threshold for Step 3. No new physical or mechanistic entities are introduced; the latent variables and local correlation function are standard modeling constructs inherited from the sample-selection and copula literature.

free parameters (3)
  • Work-hours thresholds (34, 40) = 34 and 40 hours
    Chosen by hand based on bunching in histograms and prior literature; these define part-time, full-time, and overtime worker types for the sorting analysis. Sensitivity to these thresholds is not reported.
  • Smoothing threshold tau with epsilon = tau/2 = not reported
    Introduced in Remark 1 to keep Step 3 predicted probabilities non-negative; the value is not disclosed, which affects exact replication.
  • Exclusion point s0 = 0
    The censoring and sorting-exclusion point is set to zero (employment participation). The model allows other values but the application uses s0 = 0.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: existence of a binary instrument Z1 satisfying outcome exclusion nu_z(y) = nu(y) and sorting exclusion rho_z(s0,y) = rho(s0,y), plus relevance and non-degeneracy at s0.
    Load-bearing identification conditions; not testable, and the paper relies on them for point identification in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Equation (5): the conditional joint distribution belongs to the BDR family Phi2(-z'mu(s), -x'nu(y); g(z'rho(s,y))).
    Semiparametric restriction that the local Gaussian representation has linear indices with a known link g; this is what is estimated by the three-step procedure.
  • standard math Lemma 1 (LGR): any joint CDF can be represented pointwise as a bivariate standard Gaussian CDF with local correlation rho(s,y).
    Copula-type representation taken from CFL and used throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: iid sampling, compact supports, smooth conditional densities, unique interior maximizers, and non-singular expected Hessians.
    Regularity conditions needed for the FCLT and multiplier bootstrap; standard in this literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distribution Regression with Censored Selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4Q7FGGTI

@misc{pith2026250510814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distribution Regression with Censored Selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4Q7FGGTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10814}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a distribution regression model with a censored selection rule, offering a semi-parametric generalization of the Heckman selection model. Our approach applies to the entire distribution, extending beyond the mean or median, accommodates non-Gaussian error structures, and allows for heterogeneous effects of covariates on both the selection and outcome distributions. By employing a censored selection rule, our model can uncover richer selection patterns according to both outcome and selection variables, compared to the binary selection case. We analyze identification, estimation, and inference of model functionals such as sorting parameters and distributions purged of sample selection. An application to labor supply using data from the UK reveals different selection patterns into full-time and overtime work across gender, marital status, and time. Additionally, decompositions of wage distributions by gender show that selection effects contribute to a decrease in the observed gender wage gap at low quantiles and an increase in the gap at high quantiles for full-time workers. The observed gender wage gap among overtime workers is smaller, which may be driven by different selection behaviors into overtime work across genders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10814 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The first step is a probit regression to estimate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimation steps Algorithm 1 (Three-Step CDR Method). Let S and Y be finite grids covering S and Y, respectively. (1) For each s ∈ {0} ∪ S, estimate µs by running probit regressions of J s i on Zi. µˆs = arg max µs 1 n Xn i=1 J¯s i log Pr(Si > s | Zi) + J s i log Pr(Si ≤ s | Zi) = arg max µs 1 n Xn i=1 J¯s i log Φ(Z ′ iµs) + J s i log Φ(−Z ′ iµs). (2) For each y ∈ Y, estimate θy = (νy, ρ0y) by a probit regression wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of work hours by gender Our specification of S0 involves the definition of part-time, full-time, and overtime work, with thresholds set at 34 and 40 hours. This means we classify individuals working 34 hours or less as part-time workers, those working from 35 to 40 hours as full-time workers, and those working 41 hours or more as overtime workers. Although we have not been able to find formal definitions … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Estimates and 95% confidence bands for the selection sorting function using Specification 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimates and 95% confidence bands for the selection sorting into full-time using Specification 2 To explain why married women exhibit positive selection only at the bottom of the distribution, we adopt the concepts of voluntary and involuntary part-time work. Accordin…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimates and 95% confidence bands for the selection sorting into overtime using Specification 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimates and 95% confidence bands for the quantiles of observed wages and decomposition between full-time working men and women in Specification 2 For overtime workers, the percentages exceed 100 or fall below −100 because the wage distribution gaps generated by the c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Estimates and 95% confidence bands for the quantiles of observed wages and decomposition between overtime working men and women in Specification 2 4.3.3. Work hours decomposition. Lastly, we decompose the difference in the distribution functions of observed work hours …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimates and 95% confidence bands for the distribution of work hours and decomposition between men and women 5. Conclusion We propose a distribution regression model with censored sample selection rule. Compared to the classical HSM, our model enables the analysis of …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Selection sorting into full-time using Specification 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Selection sorting into overtime using Specification 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Pairwise Differencing Distribution Regression Approach for Network Models

    econ.EM 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A conditional maximum likelihood estimator for distribution regression in dyadic networks with two-way fixed effects is developed, with joint inference across thresholds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (1978): The estimation of a simultaneous equation generalized probit model, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1193--1205

    Amemiya, T. (1978): The estimation of a simultaneous equation generalized probit model, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1193--1205

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1979): The estimation of a simultaneous-equation Tobit model, International economic review, 169--181

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    Arellano, M. and S. Bonhomme (2017): Quantile selection models with an application to understanding changes in wage inequality, Econometrica, 85, 1--28

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Goldin, and L

    Bertrand, M., C. Goldin, and L. F. Katz (2010): Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors, American economic journal: applied economics, 2, 228--255

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Blank, R. M. (1990): Are Part-Time Jobs Bad Jobs? in A Future of Lousy Jobs? The Changing Structure of U.S. Wages, ed. by G. Burtless, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 123--155

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Blau, F. D. and L. M. Kahn (2017): The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations, Journal of economic literature, 55, 789--865

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Blinder, A. S. (1973): Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates, Journal of Human resources, 436--455

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    Costa-Dias, D

    Blundell, R., M. Costa-Dias, D. Goll, and C. Meghir (2021): Wages, experience, and training of women over the life cycle, Journal of Labor Economics, 39, S275--S315

    work page 2021

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Gosling, H

    Blundell, R., A. Gosling, H. Ichimura, and C. Meghir (2007): Changes in the distribution of male and female wages accounting for employment composition using bounds, Econometrica, 75, 323--363

    2007

  2. [10]

    Reed, and T

    Blundell, R., H. Reed, and T. M. Stoker (2003): Interpreting aggregate wage growth: The role of labor market participation, American Economic Review, 93, 1114--1131

    2003

  3. [11]

    (2012): Involuntary part-time workers in Britain: evidence from the labour force survey, Industrial Relations Journal, 43, 242--259

    Cam, S. (2012): Involuntary part-time workers in Britain: evidence from the labour force survey, Industrial Relations Journal, 43, 242--259

    2012

  4. [12]

    (1997): Semiparametric estimation of the Type-3 Tobit model, Journal of Econometrics, 80, 1--34

    Chen, S. (1997): Semiparametric estimation of the Type-3 Tobit model, Journal of Econometrics, 80, 1--34

    1997

  5. [13]

    Chen, S., N. Liu, H. Zhang, and Y. Zhou (2024): Estimation of wage inequality in the UK by quantile regression with censored selection, Journal of Econometrics, 105733

    2024

  6. [14]

    Fern \'a ndez-Val, and S

    Chernozhukov, V., I. Fern \'a ndez-Val, and S. Luo (2023): Distribution regression with sample selection and UK wage decomposition, Tech. rep., cemmap working paper

    2023

  7. [15]

    Fern\'andez-Val, and S

    Chernozhukov, V., I. Fern\'andez-Val, and S. Luo (2025): Distribution Regression with Sample Selection and UK Wage Decomposition, 1978-2013. [data collection], Tech. Rep. SN: 9355, Office for National Statistics, Institute for Fiscal Studies, [original data producer(s)]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Fern \'a ndez-Val, and B

    Chernozhukov, V., I. Fern \'a ndez-Val, and B. Melly (2013): Inference on counterfactual distributions, Econometrica, 81, 2205--2268

    2013

  9. [17]

    (2018): Who chooses part-time work and why, Monthly Lab

    Dunn, M. (2018): Who chooses part-time work and why, Monthly Lab. Rev., 141, 1

    2018

  10. [18]

    van Vuuren, and F

    Fern \'a ndez-Val, I., A. van Vuuren, and F. Vella (2021): Nonseparable sample selection models with censored selection rules, Journal of Econometrics, 105088

    2021

  11. [19]

    Gale, D. and H. Nikaido (1965): The Jacobian matrix and global univalence of mappings, Mathematische Annalen, 159, 81--93

    1965

  12. [20]

    Kampelmann, and F

    Garnero, A., S. Kampelmann, and F. Rycx (2014): Part-time work, wages, and productivity: evidence from Belgian matched panel data, ILR Review, 67, 926--954

    2014

  13. [21]

    Gin \'e , E. and J. Zinn (1984): Some limit theorems for empirical processes, The Annals of Probability, 929--989

    1984

  14. [22]

    (2014): A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter, American economic review, 104, 1091--1119

    Goldin, C. (2014): A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter, American economic review, 104, 1091--1119

    2014

  15. [23]

    Machin, and C

    Gosling, A., S. Machin, and C. Meghir (2000): The changing distribution of male wages in the UK, The Review of Economic Studies, 67, 635--666

    2000

  16. [24]

    (1974): Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply, Econometrica: journal of the econometric society, 679--694

    Heckman, J. (1974): Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply, Econometrica: journal of the econometric society, 679--694

    1974

  17. [25]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1979): Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica

    1979

  18. [26]

    Hirsch, B. T. (2005): Why do part-time workers earn less? The role of worker and job skills, ILR Review, 58, 525--551

    2005

  19. [27]

    Honore, B. E., E. Kyriazidou, and C. Udry (1997): Estimation of type 3 tobit models using symmetric trimming and pairwise comparisons, Journal of econometrics, 76, 107--128

    1997

  20. [28]

    Kitagawa, E. M. (1955): Components of a difference between two rates, Journal of the american statistical association, 50, 1168--1194

    1955

  21. [29]

    Lee, M.-j. and F. Vella (2006): A semi-parametric estimator for censored selection models with endogeneity, Journal of Econometrics, 130, 235--252

    2006

  22. [30]

    Maasoumi, E. and L. Wang (2019): The gender gap between earnings distributions, Journal of Political Economy, 127, 2438--2504

    2019

  23. [31]

    Mulligan, C. B. and Y. Rubinstein (2008): Selection, investment, and women's relative wages over time, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1061--1110

    2008

  24. [32]

    Noonan, M. C., M. E. Corcoran, and P. N. Courant (2005): Pay differences among the highly trained: Cohort differences in the sex gap in lawyers' earnings, Social forces, 84, 853--872

    2005

  25. [33]

    (1973): Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets, International economic review, 693--709

    Oaxaca, R. (1973): Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets, International economic review, 693--709

    1973

  26. [34]

    van der Vaart, A. W. (1998): Asymptotic statistics, Cambridge university press

    1998

  27. [35]

    van der Vaart, A. W. and J. A. Wellner (1996): Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes, Springer Series in Statistics

    1996

  28. [36]

    (1993): A simple estimator for simultaneous models with censored endogenous regressors, International Economic Review, 441--457

    Vella, F. (1993): A simple estimator for simultaneous models with censored endogenous regressors, International Economic Review, 441--457

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.