Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01g732d899j
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFarber, Henry S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T01:58:05Z-
dc.date.available2011-10-26T01:58:05Z-
dc.date.issued1998-06-01T00:00:00Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01g732d899j-
dc.description.abstractThree central facts describe inter-firm worker mobility in modern labor mar- kets: 1) long-term employment relationships are common, 2) most new jobs end early, and 3) the probability of a job ending declines with tenure. Models based on firm-specific capital provide a parsimonious explanation for these facts, but it also appears that worker heterogeneity in mobility rates can account for much of what we observe in these data. I investigate tests of the specific capital model and consider whether these tests are success- ful in distinguishing the specific capital model from a model based on heterogeneity. One approach uses longitudinal data with detailed mobility histories of workers. These analyses suggest that both heterogeneity and specific capital (implying true duration dependence in the hazard of job ending) appear to be significant factors in accounting for mobil- ity patterns. A second approach is through estimation of the return to tenure in earnings functions. This is found to have several weaknesses including endogeneity of tenure and the lack of tight theoretical links between tenure and accumulated specific capital and between productivity and wages. A third approach is to use of data on the earnings experience of displaced workers. Several tests are derived based on these data, but there is generally an alternative heterogeneity-based explanation that makes interpretation difficult. Nonethe- less, firms appear willing to pay to encourage long-term employment relationships, and they may do so because it is efficient to invest in their workforce. On this basis, I conclude that, while deriving convincing direct evidence for the specific capital model of mobility is difficult, it appears that specific capital is a useful construct for understanding worker mobility and wage dynamics.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorking Papers (Princeton University. Industrial Relations Section) ; 400en_US
dc.subjectinter-firm worker mobilityen_US
dc.subjectemployment relationshipsen_US
dc.subjectfirm-specific capitalen_US
dc.titleMobility and Stability: The Dynamics of Job Change in Labor Marketsen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
pu.projectgrantnumber360-2050en_US
Appears in Collections:IRS Working Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
400.pdf5.46 MBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in Dataspace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.