Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Was Adam Smith Right After All? Another Test of the Theory of Compensating Wage Differentials

Duncan, Greg J., Holmlund, Bertil·1983·Journal of Labor Economics

Abstract

Past attempts to estimate the magnitude of compensating wage differentials have been hindered by the biasing effects of omitted variables and measurement error. We argue that a wage change formulation, estimated with panel data that contain worker reports of their own job characteristics, reduces both of these biases. Our empirical results, based on a large panel of workers in Sweden, confirm these conjectures by giving many more reasonable coefficient estimates for a wage change equation than for a wage level formulation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/298018

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Duncan, G. J., & Holmlund, B.
Venue
Journal of Labor Economics
Published
1983-10
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
366-379
ISSN
  • 0734-306X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5307
OpenAlex
W2031210482
Cited by
267
References
0
FWCI
30.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Was Adam Smith Right After All? Another Test of the Theory of Compensating Wage Differentials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/298018
The paper
Duncan, G. J., & Holmlund, B. (1983). Was Adam Smith Right After All? Another Test of the Theory of Compensating Wage Differentials. Journal of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/298018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.