Journal of Political Economy · 2025 · [{"name": "Hamish Low", "affiliation": ["University of Oxford"]}, {"name": "Luigi Pistaferri", "affiliation": ["Centre for Economic Policy Research", "Stanford University"]}]
中文摘要
我们利用匹配的调查-行政数据，揭示了残疾保险资格核定过程中所存在的错误程度。错误拒绝（第一类错误）普遍存在，并呈现出较大的性别差异。在控制健康状况类型、职业及一系列人口统计特征后，患有严重、限制工作的永久性损伤的女性被拒绝的概率比男性高20个百分点。这一性别差异的产生，是因为与观测特征相同的男性相比，女性更有可能被评估为能够找到其他工作。尽管如此，被拒绝后，与没有工作限制的被拒绝女性相比，自我报告存在工作限制的女性并未重返工作岗位。我们考察这些第一类错误中的性别差异是否源于女性健康状况优于男性、女性疼痛阈值更低、女性更容易申请残疾保险，或女性申请时所依据的工作限制更难核实。这些解释均与数据不一致。相反，我们发现有证据表明，男性和女性存在不同的接受阈值。
Abstract
We show the extent of errors made in the award of disability insurance using matched survey-administrative data. False rejections (Type I errors) are widespread and characterized by large gender differences. Women with a severe, work-limiting, permanent impairment are 20 percentage points more likely to be rejected than men, controlling for the type of health condition, occupation, and a host of demographic characteristics. The differences by gender arise because women are more likely to be assessed as being able to find other work than observationally equivalent men. Despite this, after rejection, women with a self-reported work limitation do not return to work, compared to rejected women without a work limitation. We investigate whether these gender differences in Type I errors are due to women being in better health than men, to women having lower pain thresholds, to women applying more readily for disability insurance, or to women applying with harder-to-verify work limitations. None of these explanations are consistent with the data. By contrast, we find evidence suggesting that there are different acceptance thresholds for men and women.