The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Informality Imply Segmentation in Urban Labor Markets? Evidence from Sectoral Transitions in Mexico
Abstract
This article offers an alternative to the traditional dualistic view of the relationship between formal and informal labor markets. For many workers inefficiencies in formal sector protections and low levels of labor productivity may make informal sector employment a desirable alternative to formal sector employment. The analysis offers the first study of worker transitions between sectors using detailed panel data from Mexico and finds little evidence in favor of the dualistic view. Traditional earnings differentials cannot prove or disprove segmentation in the developing-country context. The patterns of worker mobility do not suggest a rigid labor market or one segmented along the formal/informal division.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Cited by
(2008) · OECD Development Centre Working Papers · doi:10.1787/245657753644 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Maloney, W. F.
- Venue
- The World Bank Economic Review
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-05-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 275-302
- ISSN
- 0258-6770 (ISSN-L)
- 1564-698X
- OpenAlex
- W2170050404
- Cited by
- 732
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.30
- 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
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.
