请帮我从下面文章总结出男性劳动参与率下降的原因The Council of Economic Advisors of the U.S. Executive Office (2016)
argues that the long-term decline in labor participation for prime-age men is not
primarily due to changes in labor supply—for example, men choosing not to work
due to working wives or public assistance. According to the Council, nearly 36% of
prime-age men not in the labor force lived in poverty in 2014—casting doubt on
the hypothesis that non-participation represents a choice enabled by other personal
means or income sources. Supply-driven decreases in labor participation are not a
cause for concern because they indicate people are choosing to drop out of the labor
Does Criminal History Impact Labor Force Participation of Prime-Age Men?
Middle Tennessee State University 43
44 Spring 2017
force because they have a better alternative. There is reason to believe that demand
for labor as well as institutional factors, criminal history in particular, better explain
the change in labor force participation for prime-age men. This should cause concern
as it leaves both workers and the labor market worse off by eroding human capital
and stunting economic growth. Black, Furman, Rackstraw, and Rao (2016) claim that
labor supply explanations do not account for both declining workforce participation
and lower relative wages. If men with a criminal background were simply choosing
to work less, wages would increase for their peers who continue participating in the
workforce. Instead, wages are declining, which suggests the demand curve for labor
from formerly incarcerated workers has shifted inward.
While few empirical studies focus on the effect of criminal history on labor
force participation, the effect of criminal history on labor outcomes other than labor
force participation, such as employment and wages, is well documented. Using data
from over one million unique defendants in a Texas county, Mueller-Smith (2015)
finds each additional year of incarceration reduces post-release employment by 3.6%.
Pettit and Lyons (2009) analyzed the age-graded labor market effects of incarceration
and found that the negative effect of incarceration on employment was higher among
men imprisoned after age 30 while the negative effect on wages was mostly consistent
for all ages. Western and Beckett (1999) found a consistent decrease in weeks worked
per year, even after 15 years since having reported being incarcerated, for people
incarcerated during youth. On the other hand, some research has found temporary
positive effects on employment and wages after release from prison compared to
before incarceration. Bushway, Stoll, and Weiman (2007) found immediate spikes in
employment after being released from prison, which they attributed to a new mindset
about the importance of work and staying out of prison. Nonetheless, they also noted
that employment rates returned to pre-prison rates within 18 months.
Kling, Weiman, and Western (2001) articulate the common endogeneity
problem for most research on the economic effects of criminal history: “Are the labor
market experiences of ex-offenders due to the effects of conviction or incarceration,
or are they due to characteristics of offenders that simultaneously place them at risk of
arrest and low earnings or employment?” (411). Incarceration effects, they note, cannot
be wholly reduced to offender behavior since they are also a function of policy choice.
For example, the increased incarceration rates in the 1980s and 1990s were not due to
behavioral shifts but rather changes in sentencing and post-release supervision polices.
Scientia et Humanitas: A Journal of Student Research
Despite many sources citing criminal history as a likely determinant of labor
force participation, no empirical studies specifically test for this relationship for primeage men. I will use data from the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey
of Youth (NLSY79) to test the impact of criminal history incurred during youth on
future labor force participation for prime-age men.