Finis Welch and Kevin Murphy wrote a reply in the American Economic Review
just after the original paper was published -- it might have been in a
papers and proceedings. Also there were some studies by a guy at Michigan
State who pointed out the troubles with the questions that were asked (I
believe his stuff was first published as NBER working papers), which lead to
a mismeasurement on the disemployment issue. Also Finis Welch wrote a
review in Industrial and Labor Relations Review (or whatever the exact title
is of the journal) of the book which is quite harsh.
I don't think the issue is one of pure "faith" in markets and sloppy
thinking. For the general reader I do suggest one look at Glen Whitman's
review essay on the issue in Critical Review. The multiple margins on which
people react to changes in the situation is what could have been highlighted
in their study, but to quickly abandon the professional consensus on minimum
wage laws because of this study was a rush to judgement of the worst sort.
Where did the adjustments take place if not in the numbers employed? If
there was no effect, wouldn't that be a result which would be highly
doubtful? Remember the cold fusion controversy --- the physicist didn't
believe the results, fought against the results, and you know what --- they
were right to resist it turned out. The chemists didn't measure correctly.
I am surprised that Bryan does find the Card/Krueger study so compelling ---
genuinely surprised Bryan :) -- and the arguments to the contrary by Welch,
Murphy, et. al. did seem persuasive to me at the time of the controversy
when I read them. I am puzzled by the persistent claim of good empirical
work by Bryan and others when one of the things that Welch has complained
about from the beginning was the inability to (a) get the data from them,
and (b) replicate the results.
Of course, Card and Krueger were not as bad as Robert Reich -- who tried to
use their work for his policy purposes. But, nevertheless, they were not
innocent babes either. It is perhaps wrong to call them "whores" as
Buchanan did in the Wall Street Journal, but some other name along those
lines might fit.
Pete
Alex Tabarrok wrote:
> If Card/Krueger is such a bad study where is the locus classicus of a
> reply? I have heard for years of a Finis Welch reply but have never
> seen anything published. Where indeed is the reply to their book which
> includes a lot more questioning the miniumum wage than their paper?
>
> I don't happen to believe their result (and where I was educated (and
> Bryan teaches) Card and Kruger are known as "whores for the political
> classes" ). Nevertheless, I get annoyed when the detractors have
> nothing more substantive to say. Faith in the discipline or perhaps
> faith in discipline makes me demand better.
>
> Card and Krueger is indeed an original and clever study and if it had
> turned out the other way I have no doubt John and others would be
> hailing it as the definitive paper on the minimum wage.
>
> Alex
> --
> Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
> Vice President and Director of Research
> The Independent Institute
> 100 Swan Way
> Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
> Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director
James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy
Department of Economics, MSN 3G4
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-993-1149
fax 703-993-1133
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
homepage: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke
Editor
Review of Austrian Economics
Department of Economics, MSN 3G4
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
