- 12 -

While this research has been influential, both in academic and policy circles, it has also been criticized by Neumark and Wascher, among others.<sup>15</sup> They have questioned the quality of the establishment phone data, measurement of the minimum wage variable, the adequacy of control groups, and the failure to consider longer-term effects. In any event, Neumark and Wascher (2007) determine from their extensive review of the minimum wage literature that the weight of the evidence still strongly supports the negative employment conclusion, with magnitudes similar to the consensus estimates of Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen (1983). They conclude that this finding is consistent when researchers focus on less-skilled groups and use aggregate data, as opposed to data for small areas or specific industries.<sup>16</sup> Going beyond purely technical considerations, many economists who question the Card-Krueger-Katz findings are, at a more fundamental level, skeptical about the idea that induced increases in the price of unskilled labor could result in anything but decreased demand for that labor (e.g., Deere, Murphy, and Welch 1995). In any event, there is no question that the Card-Krueger-Katz research raised questions about the validity of different labor market models<sup>17</sup> and left economists more divided about employment effects of minimum wages.<sup>18</sup> These debates notwithstanding, what conclusions can be drawn from the ever-expanding international literature? On balance, the evidence suggests that an increase in the minimum wage is most likely to result in a modest negative employment effect though this is not always the case. For example, Brown (1999: 2154), in a frequently cited review, concludes that “the minimum wage effect is small (and zero is often hard to reject)”. In its reexamination of the Job Strategy, the OECD (2006) came to a similar conclusion, basing its policy advice on “the considerable number of studies [that] have found that the adverse impact of minimum wages on employment is modest or non-existent“(p. 86).

What about developing countries? The existing evidence largely pertains to Latin America, although there are some studies in Southeast Asia, Central Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa.<sup>19</sup> The clear majority of studies do find some adverse effects, but again they are most often modest. Examples include estimations for Brazil (Lemos 2004; Fajnzylber 2001; Neumark, Cunningham, and Siga 2006); Colombia (Bell 1997; Maloney and Nunez Mendez 2004; Arango and Pachon 2004); Trinidad and Tobago (Strobl and Walsh 2003); Indonesia (Rama 2001; SMERU 2001; Alatas and Cameron 2003; Del Carpio _et al._ 2012); Costa Rica (Gindling and Terrell 2007); and

> 15 See Neumark and Wascher (2007) for an overall critique.  For an interesting exchange, see Neumark and Wascher (2000), who repeated the New Jersey study with different data and came to different conclusions and a reply by Card and Krueger (2000).

> 16 Reviewing 102 studies, Neumark and Wascher (2007) find that two-thirds show negative employment effects, with the share rising to 85 per cent for the studies they consider most credible.  They conclude that there are very few, if any, credible studies that show positive employment gains from increases in the minimum wage.

> 17 Card, Katz, and Krueger did not go much beyond stating that their results were consistent with monopsonistic theories.

> 18 While the vast majority of U.S. economists accepted the proposition a generation ago that higher minimum wages led to lower employment, there has been less consensus more recently (Fuller and Geide-Stevenson 2003) 19 For a compilation and summary of these studies, see Freeman (2010).